Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 09:37:41 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
| |-+  Congressional Elections (Moderator: Joe Republic)
| | |-+  Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print
Author Topic: Ohio redistricting proposal poised for failure  (Read 2620 times)
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8761


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2012, 11:11:17 pm »
Ignore

Well even if it was a big deal on levels above city/county, that's a purely 100% proportional system which as far as I know is not used by any state or country?

The hybrid model most proportional representation (PR) countries use of local districts below an-large distribution to correct for the FPTP swing eliminates the problems of the non-represented minority vote in geographic districts and the overlooked geographic areas in pure PR systems.

Aren't there examples of pure FPTP extremes? Like the Chicago City Council where all 50 members are from the same party?

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

Actually none of the Chicago City Council are elected on a partisan ballot. They are elected as nonpartisan office holders, though all have voted most recently as Dems in partisan primaries which establishes them in a party since there is no party registration in IL. Until 2011 there was an Alderman who voted Pub.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2577


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2012, 11:39:13 pm »
Ignore

Well there are other examples like the Massachusetts Senate (~90% Democrat) or the Hawaii Senate (95% D with 24D-1R). A 60% popular vote might be realistic in some cases but what good comes from an artificial 90% seat distribution?

A swing from 3/5 or 2/3 to 3/4 or 4/5 won't bother people as much as a swing from 2/5 to 50%+ because the first didn't change the outcome of the election (ignoring supermajority requirements such as amending constitutions) but I don't see why we even need to tolerate this disproportionate swing when there are electoral systems out there that can eliminate it.

FPTP is low on the bar for fair representation. I don't think any country should adopt it for its legislature(s).
Logged
Marokai Besieged
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 16846
United States


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2012, 12:43:31 am »
Ignore

You both are approaching this from a disturbingly slanted viewpoint of what is best for my party and not what is best for the people. It is that very attitude of "all I care about is what is best for my party" that has turned redistricting into a corrupt mess.

I sincerely hope you're not including "automatic voter registration" in your "bad because it supports the Democrats" thing.
Logged

Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29852
United States


View Profile
« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2012, 07:46:37 am »
Ignore

You both are approaching this from a disturbingly slanted viewpoint of what is best for my party and not what is best for the people. It is that very attitude of "all I care about is what is best for my party" that has turned redistricting into a corrupt mess.

I sincerely hope you're not including "automatic voter registration" in your "bad because it supports the Democrats" thing.

I find it hilarious that you can conveniently pretend that you know me far less then you actually do in order to get in a ridiculous jab such as that.

In case you didn't notice, greenforest wasn't the only one that I criticized in this thread. Roll Eyes
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8761


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2012, 01:13:12 pm »
Ignore

Well there are other examples like the Massachusetts Senate (~90% Democrat) or the Hawaii Senate (95% D with 24D-1R). A 60% popular vote might be realistic in some cases but what good comes from an artificial 90% seat distribution?

A swing from 3/5 or 2/3 to 3/4 or 4/5 won't bother people as much as a swing from 2/5 to 50%+ because the first didn't change the outcome of the election (ignoring supermajority requirements such as amending constitutions) but I don't see why we even need to tolerate this disproportionate swing when there are electoral systems out there that can eliminate it.

FPTP is low on the bar for fair representation. I don't think any country should adopt it for its legislature(s).

Have you thought about cumulative voting as a way to provide some proportionality while maintaining local districts? IL used it quite successfully from 1870 to 1980.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2577


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2012, 01:30:00 pm »
Ignore

I find it hilarious that you can conveniently pretend that you know me far less then you actually do in order to get in a ridiculous jab such as that.

In case you didn't notice, greenforest wasn't the only one that I criticized in this thread. Roll Eyes

I believe his point was that you considered adopting automatic voter registration, something that only guarantees more eligible voters will participate in elections, a Democratic equivalent to Republicans being able to keep a gerrymander that nets them at least 2-4 seats they would otherwise not have. It implies less people voting is the partisan Republican goal, which does seem to be the case nowadays.

Have you thought about cumulative voting as a way to provide some proportionality while maintaining local districts? IL used it quite successfully from 1870 to 1980.

I'm open to any system that gets as close to being proportional as possible without having downsides that outweigh the upsides but I think the reality is we're not going to be able to talk about real electoral reform if we can't even get independent redistricting to remove blatant gerrymanders. I honestly doubt the U.S. will structurally change its electoral system anytime in my lifetime. We might see some advances in automating voter registration or improving the vote window with early/postal voting and maybe undoing the Electoral College, but with the speed we're going at, I doubt FPTP really gets touched.
Logged
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2012, 01:49:51 pm »
Ignore

I linked to this proposal earlier in the thread. I'm just curious as to whether or not either of you have read it.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2577


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2012, 02:09:01 pm »
Ignore

If you're talking to me, I think it's interesting. I'm certainly no expert on electoral systems but I think the point of this thread is that the U.S. isn't going to touch anything like that given that the two parties benefit from the status quo and voters are unlikely to ditch FPTP on their own.

It looks like the only thing we might see in 2012 is a referendum on Maryland's maps and maybe Ohio getting this commission on the ballot to redraw maps for 2014 and on which is not going to solve the problem nationally. Absent a Supreme Court ruling mandating changes to the redistricting process or electoral system, I don't think we're going to see much change.
« Last Edit: July 21, 2012, 02:10:33 pm by greenforest32 »Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27414
United States


View Profile
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2012, 07:57:28 pm »
Ignore

Muon2 and I, I think, have decided that "independent" commissions need a lot of constraints to work well. Otherwise, the commissions tend to be gamed, and those claiming to be "independent" tend to fall considerably short of that. Those without reasonably tight parameters have tended to go off the rails. I don't think either of us have been particularly impressed.
Logged

muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8761


View Profile
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2012, 10:22:55 pm »
Ignore

I linked to this proposal earlier in the thread. I'm just curious as to whether or not either of you have read it.

I read it and think it fails on two counts. First is that it is clearly unconstitutional in that the reweighting of votes causes some votes to be worth more than others. This violates OMOV, and strikes me as falling in a category such as counting slaves as 3/5 a person for reapportionment. I get that the author is trying to merge a list system with single districts but in a list system all are elected from the same constituency so there is no reweighting needed - just determine the party proportions then count the votes for candidates within each party.

The second failing is that it purports to maintain a sense of representation within a district, but part of that requires the ability to recognize when a district is more important than a party. The system here puts the party well ahead of the individual in a way that serves partisan interests, but not popular will. I'd rather see a nonpartisan legislature like NE that reduces party roles rather than this plan that accentuates them.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8761


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: July 21, 2012, 10:42:56 pm »
Ignore

Muon2 and I, I think, have decided that "independent" commissions need a lot of constraints to work well. Otherwise, the commissions tend to be gamed, and those claiming to be "independent" tend to fall considerably short of that. Those without reasonably tight parameters have tended to go off the rails. I don't think either of us have been particularly impressed.

Indeed I would conclude that the commission doesn't have to be particularly "independent" if the constraints are sufficiently tight. In the aforementioned article the author points out that with a single constraint for population equality all sorts of gerrymandering can result.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #36 on: July 22, 2012, 04:50:36 am »
Ignore

Muon2 and I, I think, have decided that "independent" commissions need a lot of constraints to work well. Otherwise, the commissions tend to be gamed, and those claiming to be "independent" tend to fall considerably short of that. Those without reasonably tight parameters have tended to go off the rails. I don't think either of us have been particularly impressed.
Even the best gamed independent commissions (say Arizona) will come up with results similar to the better kind of legislative-map-by-one-party-with-serious-constraints (the new Florida map, say) - and clearly better than the worse examples of that (say Michigan).
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29852
United States


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: July 22, 2012, 12:09:32 pm »
Ignore

I find it hilarious that you can conveniently pretend that you know me far less then you actually do in order to get in a ridiculous jab such as that.

In case you didn't notice, greenforest wasn't the only one that I criticized in this thread. Roll Eyes

I believe his point was that you considered adopting automatic voter registration, something that only guarantees more eligible voters will participate in elections, a Democratic equivalent to Republicans being able to keep a gerrymander that nets them at least 2-4 seats they would otherwise not have. It implies less people voting is the partisan Republican goal, which does seem to be the case nowadays.

The problem is he should know better after three years then to assume that "Well since I am a Republican, this this and this". He also should know by now that I would never let him get away with it. Tongue

Like a lot of things Marokai Blue tends to say, this is a case where he said something very pretentious based off my avatar color and possibly got a severely misinterpretted version of what I said in this thread as a result. What makes it all the worse is that he should know better, yet he doesn't or atleast pretends not to for some reason. He also likes to pretend people said something other than what they actually did so he can create a fake disagreement and appear to the on the right side of that argument for some undefined purpose. Both of them seem to possibly be at play here.

I don't recall ever saying in this thread that anything was bad because it benefitted Democrats. Perhaps he was confusing me with TJ. I said that the best thing for the intregrity of the system sometimes requires putting the country first and the party second. Which is the exact opposite of the implication that Marokai was claiming I had made.

As for expanding the number of voters, I have always voted early (save for this last runoff where I missed it and had to vote on the election day itself) and thus it would be ridiculous for me to want to curtail that. This is yet more partisan based presumption on MB's part. As for automatic registration, it is something I would take a look at but I wouldn't say yes or no based on who would benefit politically from that. I find the implication otherwise from someone who has known me for so long, to be an insult.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2577


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #38 on: July 22, 2012, 05:22:26 pm »
Ignore

Just to be clear when I said "It implies less people voting is the partisan Republican goal, which does seem to be the case nowadays.", I wasn't referring to Marokai's comment making that implication, but to your first post (the third post in the thread) directed at me and krazen somehow equally advocating for changes that benefit our party at the expense of the public or the integrity of the system.

The changes I called for (automatic voter registration and redistricting commissions in 3 states) would only increase the legitimacy of the system from where it is now whereas Krazen is hoping the OH commission fails and Republicans keep the existing 12R-4D gerrymander.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2012, 05:36:04 pm by greenforest32 »Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29852
United States


View Profile
« Reply #39 on: July 23, 2012, 07:40:22 am »
Ignore

Just to be clear when I said "It implies less people voting is the partisan Republican goal, which does seem to be the case nowadays.", I wasn't referring to Marokai's comment making that implication, but to your first post (the third post in the thread) directed at me and krazen somehow equally advocating for changes that benefit our party at the expense of the public or the integrity of the system.

The changes I called for (automatic voter registration and redistricting commissions in 3 states) would only increase the legitimacy of the system from where it is now whereas Krazen is hoping the OH commission fails and Republicans keep the existing 12R-4D gerrymander.

I stated that opposition to commissions in one state based on what is happening to one's party in other states, was sacrificing the integrity of the system for the benefit of one's party.  I never said anything about any other proposals you had made. My problem was with this:
Quote
If Democrats don't want Republicans to have a lock on the House for the next 10 years,

Which was followed by a list that didn't include Illinois. It came off as a partisan approach to a problem caused by such partisanship, with the aim of benefiting a party primarily and not benefiting the system. Therefore, you and Krazen appeared to be different sides of the same disturbing coin, which is what motivated my first post in this thread.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5902


View Profile
« Reply #40 on: July 23, 2012, 12:10:36 pm »
Ignore

Muon2 and I, I think, have decided that "independent" commissions need a lot of constraints to work well. Otherwise, the commissions tend to be gamed, and those claiming to be "independent" tend to fall considerably short of that. Those without reasonably tight parameters have tended to go off the rails. I don't think either of us have been particularly impressed.
Even the best gamed independent commissions (say Arizona) will come up with results similar to the better kind of legislative-map-by-one-party-with-serious-constraints (the new Florida map, say) - and clearly better than the worse examples of that (say Michigan).



The Michigan map has a mere 2 out of 14 districts won by Senator John McCain, compared to 12 out of 14 districts won by President Barack Obama.

If anything, the Michigan map well adheres to the notion that competitive seats should be drawn. Greenforest32 is complaining for no reason at all, other than the simple fact that the voters do not prefer his party.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15640
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.52, S: 4.52

View Profile
« Reply #41 on: July 23, 2012, 12:46:32 pm »
Ignore

Muon2 and I, I think, have decided that "independent" commissions need a lot of constraints to work well. Otherwise, the commissions tend to be gamed, and those claiming to be "independent" tend to fall considerably short of that. Those without reasonably tight parameters have tended to go off the rails. I don't think either of us have been particularly impressed.
Even the best gamed independent commissions (say Arizona) will come up with results similar to the better kind of legislative-map-by-one-party-with-serious-constraints (the new Florida map, say) - and clearly better than the worse examples of that (say Michigan).



The Michigan map has a mere 2 out of 14 districts won by Senator John McCain, compared to 12 out of 14 districts won by President Barack Obama.

If anything, the Michigan map well adheres to the notion that competitive seats should be drawn. Greenforest32 is complaining for no reason at all, other than the simple fact that the voters do not prefer his party.

That sounds like the arguments NC Republicans made about their map. They maintained that because Roy Cooper carried all the districts in 2008, their redistricting plan was, holistically, "fair" and "competitive."
Logged


krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5902


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: July 23, 2012, 01:09:20 pm »
Ignore

That sounds like the arguments NC Republicans made about their map. They maintained that because Roy Cooper carried all the districts in 2008, their redistricting plan was, holistically, "fair" and "competitive."

That's true, except for the fact that when many people label a state as 'lean D' or 'lean R', and label a mapping scheme as representative of the state or not, they tend to do so based on the Presidential race rather than an obscure downballot race.


I reject the notion that a district like, say, MI-01, in the old map and the new, can be considered 'gerrymandered' merely because a Republican wins it after a Democrat held it for years.
Logged
greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2577


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #43 on: July 23, 2012, 02:56:33 pm »
Ignore

I stated that opposition to commissions in one state based on what is happening to one's party in other states, was sacrificing the integrity of the system for the benefit of one's party.  I never said anything about any other proposals you had made. My problem was with this:
Quote
If Democrats don't want Republicans to have a lock on the House for the next 10 years,

Which was followed by a list that didn't include Illinois. It came off as a partisan approach to a problem caused by such partisanship, with the aim of benefiting a party primarily and not benefiting the system. Therefore, you and Krazen appeared to be different sides of the same disturbing coin, which is what motivated my first post in this thread.

You stated opposition as if there's a realistic alternative (50 commissions in all states at the same time or the two parties agreeing to eliminating legislative control of redistricting) to the deeply partisan-at-the-expense-of-the-system status quo where Republicans do have a gerrymandered lock on the House (and many state legislatures) for 10 years, especially if the Ohio commission fails.

I mentioned that because it's the reality with the sum of all the partisan redistrictings and while taking out two to three only Republican gerrymanders (and leaving Illinois) in favor of redistricting commissions might seem unfair in the context of just those three states, it's quite fair in the context of all 50 states combined where there are more Republican gerrymanders than Democratic gerrymanders and many of the states with the worst Republican gerrymanders are "safe" from the threat of independent redistricting.

Unfortunately redistricting is a dirty game at this point and unilaterally disarming is not going to increase the legitimacy of the system, it's just going to allow the people who do want to take advantage of things at the expense of the system or the people to do it.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2012, 02:58:11 pm by greenforest32 »Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29852
United States


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: July 24, 2012, 08:38:24 am »
Ignore

If that perspective were taken by all Democrats in California on the grounds that, " well we have to make up for Texas", they would probably not have a commission now. The integrity of the system is improved with each successfull reform, so I disagree with you on that and we have made great strides in this past decades thanks to Democrats and liberals getting so pissed off about Texas. There is a movement out there now and it has successfully changed several states in just the past few years. Most people hate gerrymandering and they won't appreciate such a nuance as "Its okay because we are countering Texas", because it hardly changes the fact they aren't being represented properly not only in Congress, but in their state legislature which has nothing to do with what is going on in any other state. That is why most reforms, if functional, have a good chance at success once on the ballot.

Republicans didn't invent gerrymandering. In fact, most of the "safe from reform" states were shining examples of extreme Democratic gerrymanders for decades before Republicans got their groper nasties on them in 2002 in Texas, 2004 in Georgia, and 2010 in North Carolina. No state is safe from reform. Even in NC we have constitutional amendments. They require legislative approval and while the GOP probably wouldn't go along with such, there is a minority party in this state that should have a vested interest in pushing that. They don't though and in fact, most Democrats in places of power and influence don't want it here and the same probably goes for Texas and Georgia. They see the demographic numbers and they know damn well they will soon be able to party it up like the good old days and exact revenge. There is a culture of gerrymandering in these states that is bipartisan. It just further proves my point of the folly in taking such a partisan view of the not just problem, but the effort to reform it nation wide. Consideration of partisan interest is what corrupted this system to begin with. If you can fix a state's problem, do so regardless of what people do in Texas.

In terms of redistricting and gerrymander, "Avoiding unilateral disarming" is a nice, catchy phrase which I use myself sometimes to describe the indefensible hypocrisy of corrupt insider hacks in these state legislatures and their motivation for doing nothing. It isn't exactly an effective defense for one's position, because it just that, a justification for doing nothing.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29852
United States


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: July 24, 2012, 08:42:35 am »
Ignore

Muon2 and I, I think, have decided that "independent" commissions need a lot of constraints to work well. Otherwise, the commissions tend to be gamed, and those claiming to be "independent" tend to fall considerably short of that. Those without reasonably tight parameters have tended to go off the rails. I don't think either of us have been particularly impressed.
Even the best gamed independent commissions (say Arizona) will come up with results similar to the better kind of legislative-map-by-one-party-with-serious-constraints (the new Florida map, say) - and clearly better than the worse examples of that (say Michigan).



The Michigan map has a mere 2 out of 14 districts won by Senator John McCain, compared to 12 out of 14 districts won by President Barack Obama.

If anything, the Michigan map well adheres to the notion that competitive seats should be drawn. Greenforest32 is complaining for no reason at all, other than the simple fact that the voters do not prefer his party.

That sounds like the arguments NC Republicans made about their map. They maintained that because Roy Cooper carried all the districts in 2008, their redistricting plan was, holistically, "fair" and "competitive."

What I don't get is the relative passivity of the Democratic legislators, officials and strategists in North Carolina. They complain about the map as it was drawn, but in most of the interviews I have seen, they don't really want to change this system. Have you heard anything different in your area of the state?
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2577


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #46 on: July 24, 2012, 09:13:03 am »
Ignore

That is why most reforms, if functional, have a good chance at success once on the ballot.

Most the recent reform has come from initiatives. It's nice to be optimistic of non-initiative states reforming but it won't be anytime this decade which leaves us with the status quo of a Republican house for 10 years, something Democrats didn't have after 2000 even with both parties' gerrymanders back then. It is something a lot of people are going to have issue with.

Anyway, it wouldn't be such a problem if Republicans in Congress were actually interested in governing somewhat responsibly and solving national problems. The way things are going, the best case scenario looks like a decade of the 2011-2012 congressional session. It's going to be such a waste.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29852
United States


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: July 24, 2012, 09:16:12 am »
Ignore

That is why most reforms, if functional, have a good chance at success once on the ballot.

Most the recent reform has come from initiatives. It's nice to be optimistic of non-initiative states reforming but it won't be anytime this decade which leaves us with the status quo of a Republican house for 10 years, something Democrats didn't have after 2000 even with both parties' gerrymanders back then. It is something a lot of people are going to have issue with.

Anyway, it wouldn't be such a problem if Republicans in Congress were actually interested in governing somewhat responsibly and solving national problems. The way things are going, the best case scenario looks like a decade of the 2011-2012 congressional session. It's going to be such a waste.

A gerrymander can't stop a wave election. And the more states without the gerrymanders, the less the house would be alienated from the cumulative House PV.

Actually, it would be a problem in my opinion, because the House is suppose to represent the people as best as possible.

What if the Republicans tie or win the cumulative House PV this November? The gerrymanders will be irrelevant as the cause of the GOP majority.
« Last Edit: July 24, 2012, 09:19:07 am by Senator North Carolina Yankee »Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29852
United States


View Profile
« Reply #48 on: July 24, 2012, 09:21:11 am »
Ignore

There is no way that NC, GA, TX, and MD could stop a 1994, 2006, 2010 style wave election, no matter how gerrymandered they are. All the others that need to be reformed, can be without the aid of the legislature.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Cliff Racer
Newbie
*
Posts: 12


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: July 29, 2012, 08:38:05 pm »
Ignore

There is no way that NC... could stop a... 2010 style wave election, no matter how gerrymandered they are.
I dunno, looked like they did a good job of it to me.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines