Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 165

Thread: I love Utah politics

  1. #121
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SCcoug View Post
    Don't argue with the "Libertarian".
    Haha. Exactly.

    First he mocks Utah for taxing everything, then he mocks Utah for missing out on taxing something. Typical.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  2. #122
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    28,368

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    You are willfully conflating medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. Of the 28 states that have legalized marijuana for medical use, only 10 of those impose a tax on it.

    https://www.thirdway.org/one-pager/h...ical-marijuana
    Ain't it like most people, I'm no different. We love to talk on things we don't know about.

    "The only one of us who is so significant that Jeff owes us something simply because he decided to grace us with his presence is falafel." -- All-American

    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  3. #123
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by falafel View Post
    You are willfully conflating medical marijuana and recreational marijuana. Of the 28 states that have legalized marijuana for medical use, only 10 of those impose a tax on it.

    https://www.thirdway.org/one-pager/h...ical-marijuana
    Yeah, and those other 18 states should be taxing those dumbass hippies to smoke their naturopathic remedy as well... Easy money, man. And hopefully less taxes for the rest of us.
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  4. #124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Did a little more research on the proposed medical MJ law in Utah. It is a joke. Doctors allowed to prescribe MJ would include "naturopathic physicians", dentists, PA's, etc. In other words, just about anybody - nothing at all like a medical prescription. It would also be exempt from state tax. This is not about medical cannabis. It is an attempt to get legalize MJ through the back door. No wonder it is facing opposition.
    The opposition is not because it is an attempt to legalize MJ through the back door. The opposition is because there is a prominent entity in Utah that will oppose any form of legalization of MJ. Basically, if a MJ bill gets proposed, even if it is extremely restrictive, the LDS church is going to jump right in and kill it.

    If the only way to get some common sense going on this issue is to go with a ballot initiate, it is better to make the initiate broad and see what can be done. It will fail no matter what, even though there is widespread support. The plan fact is that Sunday before election day a letter will be read from the pulpit encouraging members to vote and to vote against the ballot initiative. This isn't a criticism per se, it is a fact of life in this state.

    Also, there is a lot of misinformation about this initiative floating out there. The UMA's statement was fact checked by the Ogden Standard examiner and there are some clear inaccuracies in their statement in opposition.
    http://www.standard.net/Government/2...ana-initiative
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  5. #125
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    The opposition is not because it is an attempt to legalize MJ through the back door. The opposition is because there is a prominent entity in Utah that will oppose any form of legalization of MJ. Basically, if a MJ bill gets proposed, even if it is extremely restrictive, the LDS church is going to jump right in and kill it.

    If the only way to get some common sense going on this issue is to go with a ballot initiate, it is better to make the initiate broad and see what can be done. It will fail no matter what, even though there is widespread support. The plan fact is that Sunday before election day a letter will be read from the pulpit encouraging members to vote and to vote against the ballot initiative. This isn't a criticism per se, it is a fact of life in this state.

    Also, there is a lot of misinformation about this initiative floating out there. The UMA's statement was fact checked by the Ogden Standard examiner and there are some clear inaccuracies in their statement in opposition.
    http://www.standard.net/Government/2...ana-initiative
    Meh. The main problems with the initiative are not debunked in that article.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  6. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Meh. The main problems with the initiative are not debunked in that article.
    It seems like your main problem with it is who can prescribe it. It basically just incorporates the definition of physician under Utah law and limits prescribing to those who are already authorized to prescribe Schedule II drugs.

    (1) For the purposes of this chapter, a physician means an individual, other than a veterinarian, who is licensed to prescribe a controlled substance under Title 58, Chapter 37, Utah Controlled Substances Act and who possesses the authority, in accordance with the individual’s scope of practice, to prescribe Schedule II controlled substances.

    (2) A physician may recommend cannabis if the physician recommends cannabis to no more than 20% of the physician's patients at any given time.

    (3) A physician may recommend cannabis to greater than 20% of the physician's patients if the physician is certified, by the appropriate American medical board, in one of the following specialties: anesthesiology, gastroenterology, neurology, oncology, pain and palliative care, physiatry, or psychiatry.

    (4) A physician may recommend cannabis to an individual under this chapter only in the course of a physician-patient relationship after the physician has completed a full assessment of the patient's condition and medical history.

    (5)(a) Except as provided in Subsection (5)(b), a physician eligible to recommend cannabis or a cannabis product under this section may not advertise that the physician recommends cannabis or a cannabis product.

    (b) A physician may advertise via a website that displays only:

    (i) a green cross;

    (ii) the location and hours of operation of the physician's office;

    (iii) a qualifying illness that the physician treats; and

    (iv) a scientific study regarding cannabis use.
    So they are letting people prescribe it who can also prescribe opiates. I know I may get some push back from you on this, but opiates are much more addictive and dangerous than MJ. If we are trusting someone to prescribe an opiate, I don't see why we can't trust them to prescribe MJ. I think you are getting some bad information about who can actually prescribe under this ballot initiative.

    As for exempting from state tax are other prescriptions exempt from state taxes? If so, it would make sense to exempt it.

    I don't think the initiate goes far enough, just establish recreational MJ like Colorado, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon and sin tax the hell out of it.
    Last edited by MartyFunkhouser; 04-12-2018 at 01:42 PM.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  7. #127
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    It seems like your main problem with it is who can prescribe it. It basically just incorporates the definition of physician under Utah law and limits prescribing to those who are already authorized to prescribe Schedule II drugs.



    So they are letting people prescribe it who can also prescribe opiates. I know I may get some push back from you on this, but opiates are much more addictive and dangerous than MJ. If we are trusting someone to prescribe an opiate, I don't see why we can't trust them to prescribe MJ. I think you are getting some bad information about who can actually prescribe under this ballot initiative.

    As for exempting from state tax are other prescriptions exempt from state taxes? If so, it would make sense to exempt it.

    I don't think the initiate goes far enough, just establish recreational MJ like Colorado, Nevada, Washington, and Oregon and sin tax the hell out of it.
    Maybe. Maybe not.

    From the UMA document, it sounds like the "physicians" giving out prescriptions will be allowed to have ownership in dispensaries. Fundamental conflict of interest.

    Let's just write up a full legalization initiative and go with that. Stop with the charade.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  8. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Maybe. Maybe not.

    From the UMA document, it sounds like the "physicians" giving out prescriptions will be allowed to have ownership in dispensaries. Fundamental conflict of interest.

    Let's just write up a full legalization initiative and go with that. Stop with the charade.
    I don't think you can trust the UMA opposition on this. By the way, plenty of kick backs and fundamental conflicts of interest in the medical industry with what they get from prescription drug makers.

    I agree with you though, let's just write up a full legalization and go with that.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  9. #129
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,197

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Maybe. Maybe not.

    From the UMA document, it sounds like the "physicians" giving out prescriptions will be allowed to have ownership in dispensaries. Fundamental conflict of interest.

    Let's just write up a full legalization initiative and go with that. Stop with the charade.
    Quote Originally Posted by MartyFunkhouser View Post
    I don't think you can trust the UMA opposition on this. By the way, plenty of kick backs and fundamental conflicts of interest in the medical industry with what they get from prescription drug makers.

    I agree with you though, let's just write up a full legalization and go with that.
    It is nice around here when you two agree on something.

    Just think how happy you will make all those poor Utah farmers wearing the MAGA hats!
    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  10. #130
    вот так штука CardiacCoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The SLC
    Posts
    10,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski View Post
    Let's just write up a full legalization initiative and go with that. Stop with the charade.
    Yep I agree with this.

    It would be so lame and hypocritical to legalize recreational marijuana but call it “medical” marijuana.

    The fact is that when you legalize “medical” marijuana in this way a huge portion of the prescriptions go to young men in their 20s who represent themselves as having chronic back pain or something.

    So much better to keep the doctors out of it entirely rather than encourage a bunch of loser, unethical docs to be an integral part of a basically legalized recreational marijuana industry in the state.

  11. #131

    Default

    We all agree. Legalize it.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  12. #132
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,121

    Default

    Just for fun...

    I took a survey being done by the Utah Republican Party - I believe it was only sent to registered Republicans (a point I make simply so you know who is speaking here.)

    Today they sent back the results to everyone who participated - I thought it was somewhat interesting, so I figured I'd share. FYI - there were just over 2200 responses:

    First - the "no duh" responses:

    Mitt Romney - around 1700 of those surveyed indicated they will be voting for Mitt. "Undecided" and "Other" both got more votes than Jenni Wilson.

    Bishop, Curtis, and Stewart were all runaway favorites. Love will win - but it wasn't as lopsided as the others.

    Now the rest of the story...

    Prop 1 - fewer than 700 say they will vote yes, compared to more than 1200 voting no. Still 500 or so undecided.

    Prop 2 - Just over 500 say they'll vote yes, compared to around 1600 voting no. This one actually surprised me - I thought it would be closer.

    Prop 3 & 4 - There are more people undecided than there are either for or against these two. Which means no one has any idea what they are and haven't talked to their neighbors yet to see how to vote.

    Constitutional Amendments - similar response. More for than against, but also more undecided than against.

    Interesting to me - and will blow the minds of most here:

    President Trump approval ratings: 44% approve; 23% somewhat approve; only 19% disapprove.

    Finally - 75% think Kavanaugh should be confirmed.

  13. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    Just for fun...

    I took a survey being done by the Utah Republican Party - I believe it was only sent to registered Republicans (a point I make simply so you know who is speaking here.)

    Today they sent back the results to everyone who participated - I thought it was somewhat interesting, so I figured I'd share. FYI - there were just over 2200 responses:

    First - the "no duh" responses:

    Mitt Romney - around 1700 of those surveyed indicated they will be voting for Mitt. "Undecided" and "Other" both got more votes than Jenni Wilson.

    Bishop, Curtis, and Stewart were all runaway favorites. Love will win - but it wasn't as lopsided as the others.

    Now the rest of the story...

    Prop 1 - fewer than 700 say they will vote yes, compared to more than 1200 voting no. Still 500 or so undecided.

    Prop 2 - Just over 500 say they'll vote yes, compared to around 1600 voting no. This one actually surprised me - I thought it would be closer.

    Prop 3 & 4 - There are more people undecided than there are either for or against these two. Which means no one has any idea what they are and haven't talked to their neighbors yet to see how to vote.

    Constitutional Amendments - similar response. More for than against, but also more undecided than against.

    Interesting to me - and will blow the minds of most here:

    President Trump approval ratings: 44% approve; 23% somewhat approve; only 19% disapprove.

    Finally - 75% think Kavanaugh should be confirmed.
    NOt surprised at all. Nationally, Trump's support among republicans is around 75%.

  14. #134

    Default

    I'm surprised that many said they would vote yes on Prop 2.
    The crux of what has traumatized us about CUF/CG is that we thought they were our friends. And their identity as BYU fans turned out to be the most important thing to them. What empty lives! What a damning indictment of the LDS Church!
    --SeattleUte

    He who drinks beer sleeps well. He who sleeps well cannot sin. He who does not sin goes to heaven. The logic is impeccable.
    --Charles W. Bamforth, Ph.D.

  15. #135

    Default

    I don't live in Utah, but I hope prop 4 passes. it's the anti-gerrymandering proposal. Gerrymandering and out of control idiotic tribalism go hand in hand.
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 12:18 PM.

  16. #136
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    I don't live in Utah, but I hope prop 4 passes. it's the anti-gerrymandering proposal. Gerrymandering and out of control idiotic tribalism go hand in hand.
    Me too.

  17. #137

    Default

    The idea that there are 15 cities in utah that are covered by more than one Congressional district is absolutely absurd. Extreme tribalism is supported when a representative to Congress is such a shoo-in for reelection because their district is so skewed toward a single type of constituent that they have zero incentive to ever even listen to or give an audience to a differing point of view. That's really bad for representative government.

    https://betterboundaries.org/faq/

    "What are some of the negative effects of gerrymandering in Utah?
    Slicing and dicing of communities: A common gerrymandering tactic is unnecessarily breaking apart cities and towns. Fifteen Utah cities are split into two or more Congressional districts -- diminishing the collective voting power of those communities. Many other cities and towns are broken into multiple House and Senate districts.

    A particularly egregious example of this can be found with the city of Holladay, a city of approximately 30,000 people. Holladay is split between four State House districts, two State Senate districts and two Congressional districts. A typical State House district has roughly 30,000 people. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the voters. “Accountability is lost when a city like Holladay is broken apart into so many districts. “ - Rob Dahle, Mayor of Holliday* (Independent) *Formal title only used for identification purposes."
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 12:55 PM.

  18. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    I don't live in Utah, but I hope prop 4 passes. it's the anti-gerrymandering proposal. Gerrymandering and out of control idiotic tribalism go hand in hand.
    I don't understand why a republican would think an independent commission's boundaries would be better than a republican legislature's boundaries. Prop 4 is a proposal to help democrats get a house seat from Utah. Why would I support that?

  19. #139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    The idea that there are 15 cities in utah that are covered by more than one Congressional district is absolutely absurd. Extreme tribalism is supported when a representative to Congress is such a shoo-in for reelection because their district is so skewed toward a single type of constituent that they have zero incentive to ever even listen to or give an audience to a differing point of view. That's really bad for representative government.

    https://betterboundaries.org/faq/

    "What are some of the negative effects of gerrymandering in Utah?
    Slicing and dicing of communities: A common gerrymandering tactic is unnecessarily breaking apart cities and towns. Fifteen Utah cities are split into two or more Congressional districts -- diminishing the collective voting power of those communities. Many other cities and towns are broken into multiple House and Senate districts.

    A particularly egregious example of this can be found with the city of Holladay, a city of approximately 30,000 people. Holladay is split between four State House districts, two State Senate districts and two Congressional districts. A typical State House district has roughly 30,000 people. Who benefits from this? Certainly not the voters. “Accountability is lost when a city like Holladay is broken apart into so many districts. “ - Rob Dahle, Mayor of Holliday* (Independent) *Formal title only used for identification purposes."
    Do cities have the right to vote?

  20. #140

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    I don't understand why a republican would think an independent commission's boundaries would be better than a republican legislature's boundaries. Prop 4 is a proposal to help democrats get a house seat from Utah. Why would I support that?
    Because it’s ethical. California did that and I think every state should. Gerrymandering is certainly not something the founding fathers would’ve been all about and it’s unhealthy for our Republic.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  21. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    I don't understand why a republican would think an independent commission's boundaries would be better than a republican legislature's boundaries. Prop 4 is a proposal to help democrats get a house seat from Utah. Why would I support that?
    Because runaway tribalism is bad for democracy. It's not a proposal for getting a democrat elected. You already have one of those in Utah anyway (district 2). That wouldn't even necessarily change. It's ABSURD that a basic entity like a city with all of it's diverse people and neighborhoods shouldn't be represented by someone who would have a reason to listen to everyone. We are losing our freedom in this country because of this Gerrymandering garbage. You actually like representatives who don't give a shit what the people think because their reelection is a foregone conclusion every two years? That's what we're talking about.

    It doesn't even have to be about a partisan issue. The fact that your rep for all intents and purposes has a lifetime appointment after winning election one time means he/she has little reason to care what you think even if you're of the same party.
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 01:16 PM.

  22. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Because it’s ethical. California did that and I think every state should. Gerrymandering is certainly not something the founding fathers would’ve been all about and it’s unhealthy for our Republic.
    why would I care about the health of our Republic as long as my tribe is in charge?

    Seriously, it is unethical and un-American. George Washington was right to be worried about the rise of political parties.
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 01:08 PM.

  23. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    Do cities have the right to vote?
    LOL. People from every neighborhood within a city should have representation. What has evolved flies in the face of what the Founding Fathers wanted. But you're ok with that. This is why almost a majority of Americans have left the two major parties.
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 01:26 PM.

  24. #144
    Huge Member BigPiney's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    5,389

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Because it’s ethical. California did that and I think every state should. Gerrymandering is certainly not something the founding fathers would’ve been all about and it’s unhealthy for our Republic.
    totally agree. I was able to vote for that here.

    It resulted in a major redrawing of my congressional district.

    The weird thing California also does is the top two vote getters in the primary, no matter the party, run off in the general election. So this fall I have two democrats to choose from for senate and for congress two republicans.

  25. #145

    Default

    does wapiti, who had posted 4 times since february of 2017 prior to these recent posts, come back to defend his positions?

    I'm like LeBron James.
    -mpfunk

  26. #146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    People from every neighborhood within a city should have representation.
    I've seen nothing in the constitution about neighborhoods or cities having the right to vote. Voting is an individual right.

  27. #147

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    I've seen nothing in the constitution about neighborhoods or cities having the right to vote. Voting is an individual right.
    Come on. That's not what I was arguing. I said PEOPLE. If you think it's all about partisanship, and it's ok for your rep to never have to worry about his reelection because of the way the lines are drawn, then make that argument rather than being a butthead. Don't pretend gerrymandering has nothing to do with manipulating elections.
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 02:03 PM.

  28. #148
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,121

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    I've seen nothing in the constitution about neighborhoods or cities having the right to vote. Voting is an individual right.
    For me, it isn't about "can I justify this" or "could I win the argument in court if I was called on it". So, while you're right and perhaps in a court of law you could win a gerrymandering argument by saying "Hey! Everyone still get's to vote. Constitution doesn't say how these boundaries have to be drawn up." - that is just doesn't sit well with me.

    Divide up areas in a way that is logical and that makes sense. Not in a way that looks at voting history of certain neighborhoods and communities to marginalize their voice and representation in government.

    I'm not a fan of Gerrymandering. Though I recognize that in Utah it benefits me more often than not. Actually - it probably benefits me on a national scale, but I suspect it does more harm than good as far as state government is concerned.

  29. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    Because runaway tribalism is bad for democracy. It's not a proposal for getting a democrat elected. You already have one of those in Utah anyway (district 2). That wouldn't even necessarily change. It's ABSURD that a basic entity like a city with all of it's diverse people and neighborhoods shouldn't be represented by someone who would have a reason to listen to everyone. We are losing our freedom in this country because of this Gerrymandering garbage. You actually like representatives who don't give a shit what the people think because their reelection is a foregone conclusion every two years? That's what we're talking about.

    It doesn't even have to be about a partisan issue. The fact that your rep for all intents and purposes has a lifetime appointment after winning election one time means he/she has little reason to care what you think even if you're of the same party.
    The lifetime appointment problem has always been there, regardless of gerrymandering. In any given year, only a small % of incumbents have competitive races. California has an independent commission draw its boundaries. Of its 53 house districts only 9 are considered competitive according to Real Clear Politics.

    Also, all 4 Utah house districts are currently Republican. Mia Love's seat is considered a toss-up. 1/4 in Gerrymandered Utah vs 9/53 in independent California. Term limits is the only way to stop the lifetime appointments.

  30. #150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    For me, it isn't about "can I justify this" or "could I win the argument in court if I was called on it". So, while you're right and perhaps in a court of law you could win a gerrymandering argument by saying "Hey! Everyone still get's to vote. Constitution doesn't say how these boundaries have to be drawn up." - that is just doesn't sit well with me.

    Divide up areas in a way that is logical and that makes sense. Not in a way that looks at voting history of certain neighborhoods and communities to marginalize their voice and representation in government.

    I'm not a fan of Gerrymandering. Though I recognize that in Utah it benefits me more often than not. Actually - it probably benefits me on a national scale, but I suspect it does more harm than good as far as state government is concerned.
    I would argue it harms everyone, even those who belong to the same party, by training our reps to feel entitled, lazy and not having any reason to care what anyone they represent thinks because their election is assured every two years because most people are just going to vote for their party no matter what the rep does. Oh sure, they could be "primaried" if a certain interest group within the party gets upset, but even that isn't much of a threat.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •