HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Jesus Christ! I just watc...

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:38 AM

Jesus Christ! I just watched Rachel.........Can anyone out there please tell if there is a way

to prevent Republican controlled states from gerrymandering state districts, like Virginia did yesterday,and then pass laws which allow these districts to control the presidential elections? This is fucking scary!!! Are we just sitting back soaking in our Obama glory and not stepping on this shit immediately? Arenít they screwing with Federal Election laws?? Rachel certainly did not have any promising solutions to the problem She just stated, ďStay TunedĒ.
l

68 replies, 6012 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 68 replies Author Time Post
Reply Jesus Christ! I just watched Rachel.........Can anyone out there please tell if there is a way (Original post)
busterbrown Jan 2013 OP
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #1
Firebrand Gary Jan 2013 #5
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #8
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #12
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #14
Firebrand Gary Jan 2013 #19
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #20
busterbrown Jan 2013 #56
caseymoz Jan 2013 #28
Drunken Irishman Jan 2013 #35
Virginian Jan 2013 #41
caseymoz Jan 2013 #57
jeff47 Jan 2013 #59
CincyDem Jan 2013 #55
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #63
CincyDem Jan 2013 #65
SunSeeker Jan 2013 #66
Firebrand Gary Jan 2013 #13
reverend_tim Jan 2013 #45
karynnj Jan 2013 #54
Cali_Democrat Jan 2013 #25
LarryNM Jan 2013 #47
regnaD kciN Jan 2013 #2
elleng Jan 2013 #3
Cali_Democrat Jan 2013 #26
elleng Jan 2013 #27
silverweb Jan 2013 #4
busterbrown Jan 2013 #6
silverweb Jan 2013 #15
AndyTiedye Jan 2013 #22
OnionPatch Jan 2013 #60
silverweb Jan 2013 #67
2naSalit Jan 2013 #7
busterbrown Jan 2013 #9
2naSalit Jan 2013 #16
2naSalit Jan 2013 #29
LarryNM Jan 2013 #40
2naSalit Jan 2013 #64
Zambero Jan 2013 #10
UCmeNdc Jan 2013 #11
Historic NY Jan 2013 #17
world wide wally Jan 2013 #18
JohnnyRingo Jan 2013 #21
2naSalit Jan 2013 #23
dgibby Jan 2013 #24
2naSalit Jan 2013 #31
busterbrown Jan 2013 #33
octoberlib Jan 2013 #30
2naSalit Jan 2013 #32
busterbrown Jan 2013 #48
Spitfire of ATJ Jan 2013 #34
reverend_tim Jan 2013 #36
Demo_Chris Jan 2013 #37
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #38
octoberlib Jan 2013 #42
Jamastiene Jan 2013 #46
reverend_tim Jan 2013 #39
LarryNM Jan 2013 #43
reverend_tim Jan 2013 #44
LarryNM Jan 2013 #49
reverend_tim Jan 2013 #50
LarryNM Jan 2013 #51
brooklynite Jan 2013 #52
lunatica Jan 2013 #53
AzDar Jan 2013 #58
oldandhappy Jan 2013 #61
NorthCarolina Jan 2013 #62
RedSpartan Jan 2013 #68

Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:41 AM

1. No. It's entirely constitutional.

The hope is that there is enough blowback to force these legislatures to second guess themselves. But in reality, it's perfectly legal because the constitution leaves up how electors are divided to each state. It's why Nebraska and Maine can legally split their electoral votes based on congressional districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:57 AM

5. I disagree that this is actually constitutional.

All amendments have their limits... For the Supreme Court to allow states manipulate the will of the people is destabilizing to democracy. In fact it ends it.

It would forever damage the court and set precedent that would make the United States illegitimate in the eyes of the world. The Court, with Citizens United is already way out on a limb and they know it.

I would not be surprised if there is already interior rumbling on the right side on the bench "WTF, we gave them Citizens United and they can't even win with that?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:14 AM

8. That's just it - there is nothing specific in the constitution.

We saw in 2000 that the 'will of the people' does not mean much in terms of electoral votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:25 AM

12. Well, there is the equal protection clause.

If your vote means nothing because of blatant gerrymandering, sure seems like a violation of the equal protection clause to me.

Here's a nice article on it by a law professor, citing to key Supreme Court cases:
http://www.ohioverticals.com/blogs/akron_law_cafe/2010/06/political-gerrymandering-part-2-supreme-court-decisions/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:31 AM

14. It's happened already. Maine and Nebraska employ a very similar method.

In 2008, Obama won one electoral vote from Nebraska even though he lost the state by 15 points.

It was on a smaller scale, but the constitutionality of it was not questioned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:45 AM

19. Yet, the constitutionality has not been questioned yet...

I think this whole conversation the Republicans are engaged in is reason for alarm, that said it does not mean that they are going to get away with it without destroying the Unites States.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:45 AM

20. I don't know.

I'd bet they do with this Supreme Court. It's not going to be on constitutional grounds that ends this. It'll be people actively standing up and fighting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Firebrand Gary (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:03 AM

56. And believe me destroying the U.S. and starting from scratch is certainly a strategy

they would embrace...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:28 AM

28. Those two states don't apportion votes by county.

They apportion them according to popular vote. Which is ridiculous when Nebraska has three electoral votes.

In Virginia, they're proposing to apportion votes according to how many counties the candidate wins. Less populous rural counties would count equally to populous urban ones. This runs contrary to "one man, one vote," which has already been adjudicated by the SCOTUS.

If the court let's it stand, there will be so many suits and recounts over counties. It will be a mess.

We need to get rid of that Electoral College now. It has distorted our presidential campaigns enough, and it is a license for abuse. Failing that, I can hope the court will rule that the Electoral votes have to counted in a uniform way across the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:49 AM

35. They do it based on congressional districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:27 AM

41. By county? Then what about the cities?

In the Commonwealth of Virginia, incorporated cities are separate from the counties, and have their own municipal governments. Richmond may be surrounded by Henrico and Chesterfield counties, but it is not part of either. Alexandria and Falls Church are not in Arlington nor in Fairfax. (The post office uses Alexandria as the address place for several parts of Fairfax but people who live there pay taxes only to Fairfax county.) In the red/blue maps, Virginia is red with blue polka dots where the cities are. It isn't reddish purple or bluish purple the way other states show up.

I think they want to assign electoral votes by Congressional districts. The Congressional districts are so gerrymandered that some of them will never elect a Dem. It is a concentration and dilution arrangement. If the Dem CDs vote 85% Dem and the R CDs vote 60% R, you can see how the Dems could be concentrated into fewer districts but have more votes, statewide. The Dems which could be 40% of the R district are SOL and will never have representation.


Fairfax County has part of three different CDs. Before redistricting, all three districts had campaign offices in McLean.
One district in the Richmond area went from Norfolk to Charlottesville before the most recent redistricting. That was a very long narrow district. The I64 district.

After the census, the Gov asked for input on redistricting. The different colleges and universities in the state had a contest on who could make a proposal for the most fair Congressional Districts. After all that effort, Richmond assigned Gerrymandered districts again. The winner of the contest (I think it was William and Mary Law school) didn't win much. Only the honor of winning. The state didn't adopt their plan.

The vote Monday, which is a state holiday just as it is a Federal holiday was to change the state senate from 40 seats to 39 seats and the seat eliminated is a Dem seat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Virginian (Reply #41)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 08:36 AM

57. Wait! I stand corrected.


I remembered the article all wrong:

https://prospect.org/article/virginia-republicans-move-forward-mass-disenfranchisement

Okay, this is complicated. Virginia will award most of the electoral votes according to Congressional districts. The remaining two (there's one vote for every Congressional district plus two extra) would be awarded to the winner of the most Congressional districts.

Since they ramrodded through their gerrymandered the districts this week, the majority of those will go Republican. Then the Repubs will get two more.

GOP knows it's a lost cause now. They're just trying to entrench themselves to hang onto their dwindling power (and do more damage) for as long as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:37 AM

59. Nebraska is a special case

Most of the state is very, very red.
Omaha is quite blue (compared to the rest of the state)

Giving Omaha a separate vote means the state's total votes match the will of the voters better.

What the Republicans propose is the opposite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #12)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:14 AM

55. Wouldn't the equal protection clause support the Virginia plan ?

Let's put aside gerrymandering - it sucks.
Let's put aside the fact that the electoral college has to go.

We're stuck with both.

Seems like assigning those screwed up electoral college votes by gerrymandered congressional districts is more consistent with the equal protection clause than doing it at the state level. The smaller the "voting block" the more representative (and I use that term lightly given the gerrymandering).

Ultimately, elimination of the BS we get from the electoral college is the right endpoint but until that happens, I don't think this argument flies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CincyDem (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 11:31 AM

63. IMO, no. And let's not just put aside gerrymandering. Let's fight it.

Yes, both parties have done it in the past, but the Repukes have raised it to a whole new level, to the point of denying people equal protection of the laws. There's also the Voting Rights Act aspect of it, seeing as how it is being used to nullify African American votes. Remember, Richmond VA was the capitol of the Confederacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SunSeeker (Reply #63)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:41 PM

65. Agree with fighting Gerrymandering


I agree that gerrymandering is at the core of several issues. Not only does it make by district distribution of electoral votes insane, look what it's done to the house.

I'll go you one further, dump the entire electoral college system. It was built for a world that used pony express to send message from one state to the next and it has no place in today's world.

And yes - fight gerrymandering at every turn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CincyDem (Reply #65)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:43 PM

66. Agreed. The electoral college is an anti-democratic anachronism. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:30 AM

13. All the more reason... Starting with what they did in 2000

They have already labeled themselves as a partisan entity. US democracy is already under threat considering what took place in 2000, 2004 and recently Citizens United. Every single thing we stand for, every sense of legitimacy that we are viewed with having by other nations would be completely destroyed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:38 AM

45. puerto rico statehood

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:11 AM

54. Nothing specific other than that that state legislators do it

Remember when Florida was in question, many articles were written that it would be up to the legislature to select the electoral college delegates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:04 AM

25. This could be a violation of the Voting Rights Act

because it takes voting power away from predominately African American and Latino voters in large cities and gives that power to white rural voters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:43 AM

47. The Difference in What Nebraska and Maine do

as opposed to Virginia and some other red controlled Presidential blue states is that they will actually give more Electoral Votes to the Candidate who had the least Popular Vote. That has Never been done. Actually, a State would have to have At Least 7 Electoral Votes for this to happen as long as the popular vote winner gets an automatic 2 Electoral Votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:42 AM

2. Wondering the same thing...

...because it looks to me like we're going to be fated to have Presidential elections where the Democrat wins the popular vote but the Republican gets elected for the foreseeable future -- and there's not a thing we can do about it.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:42 AM

3. Yes, it is scary.

This came out a while ago, about Virginia. The Repug Lt. Gov. disagrees with the game they played, and may have some authority.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/01/bill-bolling-virginia-redistricting.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:08 AM

26. Don't be fooled

At the end of the day, the Republicans will all be on the same page. Their ultimate goal is to make sure Dems stay out of elected office by any means necessary. If that means rigging the electoral college, then so be it. Some Republicans may sound reasonable and claim to oppose such measures, but they don't. The GOP and their backers will try to ram this through in state after state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #26)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:10 AM

27. Yes, they will try.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:47 AM

4. Start mobilizing Democrats and independents NOW.

I read/heard that if this goes through, Democrats will have to win by a greater than 7% margin in each gerrymandered district to officially "win" that district.

We can do it, but we'll have to start earlier and work harder than ever before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:10 AM

6. Yea,but as I see it this country is now at the point where there are very few independents.People

are now permanently divided along ideological lines. The people who voted for Romney in my opinion will never vote for a Democratic president in their lifetime.... they have no sensibility. They just hate reason...So in effect there will be little we can do to prevent this from happening without an immediate onslaught of
economic sanctions by democrats against Virginia.... which must start immediately...

Really, I think we should all be in state of panic. This can happen in Ohio, Wisc..and evry other States which republicans control. This is fucking urgent and Iím not pushing a panic button, but Iím close..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:32 AM

15. The point is to mobilize NOW, not a year before the election.

WE feel the urgency, but does the rest of America?

Do they realize that the GOP is systematically and concertedly working to wrest all control away from the will of the people?

This is the message we have to get out today and every day, without resting: That the Government Of the People, By the People, and For the People will no longer exist under absolute GOP control, but will henceforward be a corporate/government meld that overrides any legitimate election results.

Not an exaggeration. Not a drill. People should be on the verge of panic and besieging their representatives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:58 AM

22. To Do What?

They have the votes to do this, we don't have the votes to stop them. Checkmate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to silverweb (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:52 AM

60. Mobilize, yes.

But seriously, can we really get enough Dem votes to overcome this? On some of the charts I've seen, it takes up to 5 Dem votes to equal one GOP vote in some states. I don't know if this is something we can overcome with simple get-out-the-vote operations. This has got to be stopped. I propose pitchforks, torches and guillotines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OnionPatch (Reply #60)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 05:11 PM

67. IF we start now, maybe.

I have read that Dems are exploring legal challenges already on a few grounds.

This is a coordinated and specific effort on the part of the GOP to permanently demolish the democratic process, so I'm hopeful it will be stopped in process.

The reTHUGs love to do things behind closed doors, in the shadows, springing sneak attacks. While our leaders pursue legal angles, OUR job has to be to help tear down the curtains hiding their machinations.

If we start mobilizing NOW, start exposing this plot to the light, and start making the people who don't usually pay attention aware and help them realize the critical nature of this threat, I think we can defeat it.

We can't wait until "election season." We have to start exposing them and raising awareness immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:13 AM

7. Hmmm

I was under the impression that redistricting was done following the decennial census after the population is established and districts are drawn to reflect the changes based on the premise that a significant change in population size would determine the number of reps in the House in DC.. When did this become an "at will' event?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:15 AM

9. Well I hope youíre right but your the only one stating this....Please update......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:32 AM

16. I'll try and see what I can find

also, I think VA is also one of those states that is named and confined to conditions under the Voting Rights Act where they have to have DOJ approval to make such changes. I heard someone mention that on ED the other night.

It might take some looking, let me see what I can find out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Reply #9)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:28 AM

29. what I found

about redistricting...

First, a general web page that has a lot of info to access on the topics of elections and such:

http://www.usa.gov/Citizen/Topics/Voting/Learn.shtml

Project votesmart is a good site to bookmark.

http://votesmart.org/

As far as redistricting, yikes. Yet another glaze over issue. But thanks to wikipedia, there's a comprehensive explanation available:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redistricting

It says that this is most normally done after the census as I mentioned but I guess some states can take it upon themselves, like Texas did back when W was in office following a mid-term election I think it was, there didn't seem to be any reason other than a hostile takeover sort of event. I'm too bind to read it all, I'll check back in the morning.

nytol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 2naSalit (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:26 AM

40. Each State may have different laws on this

Tom Delay did this in Texas well after the 2000 Census realignment and was largely successful despite some court reversals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LarryNM (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:07 PM

64. In fact, they do.

That's what I learned from my searching last night. And that in some states where the VRA is in effect, it is only in effect in certain counties... one way to thwart a necessary ruling. I wonder how that could be changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:23 AM

10. Might this backfire?

Not to diminish the legitimate concern over the GOP's blatant efforts to gerrymander electoral districts, but in the case of a close popular vote presidential election where the Republican candidate carries swing states such as Ohio, Virginia, Colorado, and Florida -- the Democratic candidate would still get a share of those states' electoral votes if they were partitioned into districts. It could even tip the electoral tally in favor of the Democrat, as "blue" EV rich states such as New York, California, and Illinois would still be winner take all. Whenever the Republicans overplay their hand in expectation of a big payoff, there is a high likelihood of it blowing up in their face. They see this as an "opportunity" to regain executive control, but might they be overlooking the risks?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:23 AM

11. Yes this is an urgent and dangerous situation

If the GOP cannot win by winning the majority of voters they plan on winning by changing the rules. They are not being challenged by voters on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:34 AM

17. Maybe this is the despotism that the 2nd amendment is for using that logic...

be expressed by some of those out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:42 AM

18. We'll just have to drop the label of being a "democratic republic" and come up with something else,

because it won't matter who the most people voted for anymore. Pretty sad state of affairs.

Don't you just love how Republicans talk about taking the country "back"?...We've NEVER been there before. So, why do republicans hate America?... is it our freedom?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 01:54 AM

21. "Bob Hagan"

He's one the strongest leaders of the democratic party here in Ohio, and he won't let this slip by. He was behind the petition to stop Kasich from implementing his anti union law his first year in office.

It's not like the Democratic party in Ohio to roll over and play dead. We seldom seem to hold the governor's mansion, and we have a republican house because of gerrymandering, but there's a very strong majority of working class democrats here.

Since buyer's remorse set in early here, Kasich passed a law (or tried to) that disallowed the governor to be recalled except in the case of criminal violation. We have to wait at least two years for that. I think he knows he's a one term gov, so he'll be back at Fox News to replace Gingrich when he leaves to run for president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:00 AM

23. So, the voting Rights Act of 1964

Hes been updated and ammended four times since and the most recent was signed by GWB in 2006. The original case was based on VA's poll tax for African-Americans...

Oddly, the state is under the conditions stated in the Act which means that many of the changes made regarding voting concerns need to be approved by the DOJ except for these counties (which is a mystery to me as to why the Act would be so "cherry-picked" if you will)...

Virginia, except for 24 counties (Amherst, Augusta, Bedford, Botetourt, Carroll, Craig, Culpeper, Essex, Frederick, Grayson, Greene, James City, King George, Middlesex, Page, Prince William, Pulaski, Rappahanock, Roanoke, Rockingham, Shenandoah, Washington, Warren, and Wythe) and six independent cities (Fairfax, Harrisonburg, Manassas Park, Salem, Williamsburg, and Winchester)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act

(I used Wikki only because it was easier to read than the actual document which is so much legalese that it can make your eyes glaze over).

Hmmm. And the SCOTUS is set to revisit this Act or portions of it this year... maybe these BS actions in the states will color the decision they make in favor of the people and not the politicians (who sometimes raise questions as to whether they qualify as people).



On to the other question...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:02 AM

24. As a resident of the state of Va.,

I would urge you to boycott the state and all of it's products. Don't spend a penny here. Tourism is a big business. Vacation somewhere else. Write to the Gov. and Va. Bureau of Tourism, tell them you're not spending your money here and why. Doesn't matter if you were planning a trip here or not. Just tell them you don't agree with their politics.

Do the same thing with other states, for instance, write to Jindal and tell him you won't be spending money in his state because of his stance on hospice care.

I'm sick of these sleezy, dishonest, unethical asses. Actions have consequences, let them know they're going to take it in the pocketbook because of their actions. That's all they care about anyway, so might as well use the power of the purse to get their attention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dgibby (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:35 AM

31. And add Montana to the list

we have Yellowstone NP, Glacier NP and all kinds of tourism but they are planning to allow for the Keystone XL pipeline, I think part of it goes through the NE corner or right next to it in ND/SD and they are digging up lots more coal all of a sudden and hunting all the wolves and buffalo and just being general pricks. So letting them know you don't want to spend your hard earned tourist bucks here will get their attention, sort of. They seem to get plenty of perks from coal, oil, timber and other ecosystem destruction pukes. We already had two spills in sensitive waterways last year... And they treat the Native Americans like shit on their reservations too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dgibby (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:42 AM

33. Seems like a lot of issues are being discussed tonight......

When I first started this thread tonight I hoped Iíd have some definitive answers. I thought if I could get some
answers which would calm my concerns, it would be here.. Well, all the answers were helpful but now Iím even more concerned. It seems weíve all got to get off our asses today and Iím gonna begin calling tomorrow.
I like the boycott Virginia Idea. Where the hell DNC??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:34 AM

30. Might be able to fight the gerrymandering.

Voting Rights Act: The Voting Rights Act not only forbids state voting laws which have a discriminatory impact on minorities, Section Five of the Act also requires new voting laws in some parts of the county to ďpre-clearĒ those requirements with the Department of Justice or a federal court in Washington, DC before they can take effect. Much of Virginia remains subject to Section Five, so the maps could be stopped if they diminish minority voting strength in the covered areas. Thereís only one problem: the conservatives on the Roberts Court are widely expected to strike down Section Five before the Court adjourns this June.

Whatís Left Of The Voting Rights Act: Even if the conservative justices strike down Section Five, Section Two of the Voting Right Act still prohibits redistricting that dilutes minority voting strength. To the extent that the new GOP maps dilute the minority vote, they could be subject to a lawsuit under Section Two. Such a lawsuit, however, would ultimately appeal to the same Republican-dominated Supreme Court that is expected to strike down Section Five.

The U.S. Supreme Court Could Actually Do Itís Job: As a final note, the entire purpose of partisan gerrymanders is to weaken the voting power of people who hold one viewpoint (in this case, Democrats) while strengthening that of people who hold an opposing view (in this case, Republicans). This is a textbook violation of the First Amendmentís prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. Nevertheless, the Supreme Courtís conservatives have refused to even consider cases challenging partisan gerrymanders, although Justice Kennedy suggested that his opposition to gerrymandering lawsuits is not entirely absolute.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/01/23/1478371/four-ways-the-virginia-gops-redistricting-power-grab-could-be-stopped-by-the-law/


The Supreme Court is the key here. Aren't some of these conservative fuckers due to retire soon??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:39 AM

32. Thanks for the elaboration!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:47 AM

48. Yea, and if I was one of them I might be easily be persuaded to hold on another 4 years.

ďOur Freedom depends on your vote. Please sir do not vacate.Ē Man this sucks!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:46 AM

34. One way, move into those districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:51 AM

36. There is hope but we would need a constitutional lawyer

We may not get far with the states changing how the decide how to split up the votes. There is another argument, that is The Electoral College is nothing more then a way to count votes in the olden days. This method in now outdated. It is also in violation of the all votes are to be equal. This is because the house has limited the number of members (that has stood up in court) but over time the population of some states have grown and other shrank. Now days if you are from a small state one with only a single congressperson. You vote counts way more then a person from California. Example a small state gets 3 electoral votes for a group of people who make up one congressional district, while if your in a California congressional district you get 1 plus 2/53 of an electoral vote. The votes are not equal in value. So the argument in court would be that all votes are to be equal in the prevailing constitutional value. The court would have two choices redraw the state lines or set aside the Electoral College for popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 02:52 AM

37. This kind of desperation ploy can easily backfire

 

And disasterously so.

One thing American's will not tolerate is outright disenfranchizement. Everyone understands that they are doing this because they can not win in any other way, and that alone tells the tale.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:06 AM

38. They keep doing that in NC too.

My county is stuck with a damn majority Republican rule now because of it too. Even thought the majority of the people in my county and the counties to our east and west always vote Democratic Party, we have been lumped in with the counties to our north and northwest that vote Republican. The Republicans keep doing it over and over again until they get it the exact way they want it too. I was hoping that eventually this would come to light and people would make some noise to get something done about it outside this state. I hate to see that it is happening elsewhere too, but at least now more people know about it and are as outraged about it as I am.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #38)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:27 AM

42. I'm from NC too. Mecklenburg county. How about that Art Pope? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to octoberlib (Reply #42)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:42 AM

46. Ugh, he co-founded the John Locke Foundation.

That speaks volumes, doesn't it? I dread this McCrory governorship. He is going to undo all the good that Gov. Bev Perdue did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:17 AM

39. We could threaten Califorinification

Basically California says we will split ourselves into 53 separate states one for each congressional district. The each state gets two senators so California would then get 159 electoral votes. Texas will not stand for this, and all hell breaks loose. And we comfermise on changing to the popular vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reverend_tim (Reply #39)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:30 AM

43. What if California and some other states Refuse the

Legitimacy of the President-Elect where Candidate A in several States got more popular votes but Candidate B got more Electoral Votes. Not secede, but Refuse the results of the Election?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LarryNM (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:37 AM

44. they are still out voted when the electoral college votes are counted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reverend_tim (Reply #44)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 03:54 AM

49. I realize that it is Unlikely, for now anyway

but California et al would Not Accept the President Elect regardless of the electoral votes because of the way in which they were determined. Can California legally divide into 52 states like Texas supposedly can divide into 5 states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LarryNM (Reply #49)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:15 AM

50. That I do not know, but it could be fun to see.

I think the best solution is the law suit over unequal votes due to huge difference in state population.
Statehood for Puerto Rico could be a stop gap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to reverend_tim (Reply #50)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:47 AM

51. Sounds Good To Me :) n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:04 AM

52. Virginia didn't do that...

The redistricting Virginia affected State Legislative districts, not Congressional Districts. And second, no: the Constitution allows each state to allocate it's Electoral Vote the way it wants to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 07:07 AM

53. Did Governor Probe sign it into law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:34 AM

58. K & R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:57 AM

61. At least

let them know you are watching. Other states are on the way to doing this.
Republican Party of Virginia, 115 East Grace Street, Richmond, VA 23219
The 2014 elections are critical!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 10:12 AM

62. Meanwhile, Dems struggle to achieve a simple majority in the Senate

for filibuster reform. Welcome to the American oligarchy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to busterbrown (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2013, 07:52 AM

68. Can state democrats filibuster these bills?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread