Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 151 to 180 of 216

Thread: I love Utah politics

  1. #151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    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.
    The gerrymandering creates it and makes it far worse than it should be.

    Term limits would do nothing but train the electorate to be even lazier. Hey, if I don't like my rep, I don't even have to vote now because the system will take care of it after a few terms.

    And about your examples, Utah and CA are not swing states, so of course the party that is more prevalent will have more reps.

    Now look at the true purple states in the US. The representation should be close to 50/50 in those. But in all of them it's lopsided toward one side. What helps the GOP today is going to hurt it tomorrow when the other side is in charge. Lines should not be drawn to support one party or the other. They should be drawn in ways that make sense. This really isn't a partisan issue.
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 03:19 PM.

  2. #152

    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.
    Valid points. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Dividing into areas that are logical and make sense? In who's opinion? I prefer elected officials that we can hold accountable vs an "independent commission" that answers to no one.

  3. #153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    Valid points. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Dividing into areas that are logical and make sense? In who's opinion? I prefer elected officials that we can hold accountable vs an "independent commission" that answers to no one.
    The independent commission as is on the ballot in Utah does answer to the legislature and the governor.

    What makes sense? Well, it's not logical for you and your neighbor across the street to be represented by two different people. You're likely to have similar interests. The Founders created states and congressional districts precisely for that reason. Why not just draw the line to mostly cross in places where no one lives instead? What doesn't make sense is the party in charge decided that "your type" of person shouldn't be represented, so we'll draw up arbitrary lines to divide you from your neighbors to water down your influence.

    Real example from the state where I live:
    The city of Austin is a little "weird" compared to the rural counties that surround it. If there was a congressional district that covered most of the people in that city it would help the democrats and even libertarians more than it would the republicans. Can't have that, so let's cut it up into six different districts that include large areas outside the city so the GOP gets 6/6 instead of 5/6. Even the much larger city of Dallas doesn't get covered by that many districts. It's a blatant partisan attempt to keep even one democrat out of the House even though they're the majority in a place like Austin. I may vehemently disagree with the political opinions of the typical Austin resident, but it's un-American to say that person is so vile we're going to do everything we can to ensure they don't get someone to represent them who might share the same ideas.
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 03:39 PM.

  4. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    The gerrymandering creates it and makes it far worse than it should be.

    Term limits would do nothing but train the electorate to be even lazier. Hey, if I don't like my rep, I don't even have to vote now because the system will take care of it after a few terms.

    And about your examples, Utah and CA are not swing states, so of course the party that is more prevalent will have more reps.

    Now look at the true purple states in the US. The representation should be close to 50/50 in those. But in all of them it's lopsided toward one side. What helps the GOP today is going to hurt it tomorrow when the other side is in charge. Lines should not be drawn to support one party or the other. They should be drawn in ways that make sense.
    I think you have the red state/blue state/purple state thing wrong. Urban districts are blue, rural districts are red. Gerrymandering doesn't consolidate power, it swings close districts from leaning one way to leaning the other. For example, in Utah, the gerrymandering effect swung one district from leaning blue to leaning red. The 3 red districts are actually slightly more competitive. So your point about gerrymandering creating lifetime seats isn't valid in Utah. One district is competitive. It's been that way for as long as I can remember. I'm guessing that most states are similar.

  5. #155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    I think you have the red state/blue state/purple state thing wrong. Urban districts are blue, rural districts are red. Gerrymandering doesn't consolidate power, it swings close districts from leaning one way to leaning the other. For example, in Utah, the gerrymandering effect swung one district from leaning blue to leaning red. The 3 red districts are actually slightly more competitive. So your point about gerrymandering creating lifetime seats isn't valid in Utah. One district is competitive. It's been that way for as long as I can remember. I'm guessing that most states are similar.
    the purpose of it is to eliminate swing districts.

  6. #156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    the purpose of it is to eliminate swing districts.
    Interesting. The house was under democratic control from 1955 - 1995. Now its about to flip for the 4th time since. But gerrymandering is eliminating swing districts?

  7. #157
    Senior Member Eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Davis County
    Posts
    6,146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    Valid points. However, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Dividing into areas that are logical and make sense? In who's opinion? I prefer elected officials that we can hold accountable vs an "independent commission" that answers to no one.
    I think that's the point. When you gerrymander a district so that the majority of the constituency is of one political leaning or another - it doesn't hold the elected official accountable.

    It is EXTREMELY rare for a challenger to come from within the same party. So gerrymandering leaves voters with few choices. You don't get centrist or moderate candidates that have to appeal to both sides. You get extremists - which means whoever is on the other side really isn't an option.

  8. #158

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Eddie View Post
    I think that's the point. When you gerrymander a district so that the majority of the constituency is of one political leaning or another - it doesn't hold the elected official accountable.

    It is EXTREMELY rare for a challenger to come from within the same party. So gerrymandering leaves voters with few choices. You don't get centrist or moderate candidates that have to appeal to both sides. You get extremists - which means whoever is on the other side really isn't an option.
    What Prop 1 envisions is a district for Salt Lake County. That would remove blue votes from the other three districts, turning them darker red. The Salt Lake County district, presumably district 4, would go from a lean red, to a solid blue. I doubt any of the 4 districts would be competitive.

    In a state that regularly votes 70%+ for the republican presidential candidate, I'm not sure why anyone thinks the democrats deserve one of our house seats.

  9. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    Interesting. The house was under democratic control from 1955 - 1995. Now its about to flip for the 4th time since. But gerrymandering is eliminating swing districts?
    The Republican majority in the house is in part a product of a wildly successful campaign by the GOP to capture state legislatures and governors’ seats. It was very effective.

    It’s been a problem with both parties but the GOP made a national strategy in 2010. Southern states like North Carolina and Georgia and Texas are notoriously bad. If the democrats had played hardball in CA and few other states where similar practices have been instituted they could have gerrymandered some GOP learning districts out of existence.

    There are more democrats than republicans
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  10. #160

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    What Prop 1 envisions is a district for Salt Lake County. That would remove blue votes from the other three districts, turning them darker red. The Salt Lake County district, presumably district 4, would go from a lean red, to a solid blue. I doubt any of the 4 districts would be competitive.

    In a state that regularly votes 70%+ for the republican presidential candidate, I'm not sure why anyone thinks the democrats deserve one of our house seats.

    Because they had to make the district look like a star fish so they barely won and election.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  11. #161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    What Prop 1 envisions is a district for Salt Lake County. That would remove blue votes from the other three districts, turning them darker red. The Salt Lake County district, presumably district 4, would go from a lean red, to a solid blue. I doubt any of the 4 districts would be competitive.

    In a state that regularly votes 70%+ for the republican presidential candidate, I'm not sure why anyone thinks the democrats deserve one of our house seats.
    So then why districts at all? It's in the Constitution, so someone thought there was a reason. They were wise enough to realize different interests exist within the same state. If the people on the coast have different interests than the farmers in the rural areas or the people in the cities, then they get represented. It was set up that way because it's fair. It most definitely was not their intent that the largest group would be able to keep the others completely out of the picture. By the way, 3/4=75%, which is a lot closer to 70% than 100% is.
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 05:45 PM.

  12. #162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wapiti View Post
    Interesting. The house was under democratic control from 1955 - 1995. Now its about to flip for the 4th time since. But gerrymandering is eliminating swing districts?
    I don't know how your point has anything to do with that. You know what gerrymandering is for or you wouldn't be arguing for it.
    Last edited by BlueK; 10-03-2018 at 05:13 PM.

  13. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    So then why districts at all? It's in the Constitution, so someone thought there was a reason.
    There are no districts required in the Constitution. They are mandated by 2 USC 2c, which Congress is authorized to do in in Article I section 4.

    I personally think it would be fascinating to see a state with many seats become multi-member and make all seats at large, and I think Congress should amend 2 USC 2c to allow it.
    Last edited by Copelius; 10-03-2018 at 05:32 PM.
    “Every player dreams of being a Yankee, and if they don’t it’s because they never got the chance.” Aroldis Chapman

  14. #164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Copelius View Post
    There are no districts required in the Constitution. They are mandated by 2 USC 2c, which Congress is authorized to do in in Article I section 4.

    I personally think it would be fascinating to see a state with many seats become multi-member and make all seats at large, and I think Congress should amend 2 USC 2c to allow it.
    sorry, thanks for the correction. The net result of having all reps be at large within each state would actually hurt the GOP right now. I like the idea of districts, but this would at least eliminate the ability to gerrymander.

  15. #165
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    11,236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    By the way, 3/4=75%, which is a lot closer to 70% than 100% is.
    But one of them would be wrong.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  16. #166

    Default

    Looks like the anti-gerrymandering proposition is probably going to win. Good news for those who think the voters should choose their representatives rather than the other way around.

    https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...r-prop-create/

  17. #167
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    Looks like the anti-gerrymandering proposition is probably going to win. Good news for those who think the voters should choose their representatives rather than the other way around.

    https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...r-prop-create/

    They should get an independent commission to draw up new ward boundaries for splits/realignments as well... Talk about gerrymandering.
    "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!

  18. #168
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    Looks like the anti-gerrymandering proposition is probably going to win. Good news for those who think the voters should choose their representatives rather than the other way around.

    https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics...r-prop-create/
    Ha, I love this part:

    “It’s those Ronald Reagan ads they are running,” said Utah Senate Majority Leader Ralph Okerlund, R-Monroe, a Prop 4 opponent. Supporters’ ads show a video of the late president pushing for independent, bipartisan redistricting commissions to combat “un-American” gerrymandering.

    “That has a lot of Utah Republicans thinking they are supporting something that is Republican,” Okerlund said. But he contends Prop 4 aims to help Democrats create a safe Democratic congressional district in Salt Lake County and give unelected officials who are not beholden to voters control of drawing districts.
    Republicans support it because they think it's a republican idea (which it was). I'm sure if there were ads of Clinton or Obama supporting it, then the Repubs would be against it by a plurality.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  19. #169

    Default

    Speaking of Utah politics I did hold my nose and vote for Mitt, not like he needed it. I hope he has the backbone to challenge Trump at times. I think he’ll be an upgrade over Hatch.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  20. #170
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Speaking of Utah politics I did hold my nose and vote for Mitt, not like he needed it. I hope he has the backbone to challenge Trump at times. I think he’ll be an upgrade over Hatch.
    Frank, you could have just voted for the Libertarian! No need to hold your nose. I have a feeling that RMoney, like Lindsey, has turned into a Drumpf fanboy.
    "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!

  21. #171
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,870

    Default

    So what’s going on with the Ben/Mia race? Everyone from Utah that I’ve talked to has said it has become an ugly, mudslinging fight, which surprises me given what I know about Ben. Are the ads on the television that bad?

    I also noticed that Ben might even pull it out since he’s pretty much statistically tied with her. I’m hoping he does since I’d like more moderate Dems in the House.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  22. #172
    𐐐𐐄𐐢𐐆𐐤𐐝 𐐓𐐅 𐐜 𐐢𐐃𐐡𐐔 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    19,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    So what’s going on with the Ben/Mia race? Everyone from Utah that I’ve talked to has said it has become an ugly, mudslinging fight, which surprises me given what I know about Ben. Are the ads on the television that bad?

    I also noticed that Ben might even pull it out since he’s pretty much statistically tied with her. I’m hoping he does since I’d like more moderate Dems in the House.
    What? Folks in Utah would vote for a Dem over a black woman that is a Republican? As Frank would say, "Stay Classy, Utah".
    "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!

  23. #173
    My Mic Sounds Nice falafel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Las Wegas!
    Posts
    28,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Frank, you could have just voted for the Libertarian! No need to hold your nose. I have a feeling that RMoney, like Lindsey, has turned into a Drumpf fanboy.
    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!

  24. #174
    The dude abides Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    47,533

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Frank, you could have just voted for the Libertarian! No need to hold your nose. I have a feeling that RMoney, like Lindsey, has turned into a Drumpf fanboy.
    Legit LOL on UT mocking someone for being a Drumpf fanboy.
    "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

  25. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    Frank, you could have just voted for the Libertarian! No need to hold your nose. I have a feeling that RMoney, like Lindsey, has turned into a Drumpf fanboy.
    I’ve voted for Libertarians before but that was prior to that label seeming like it referred to individuals who are in the early stages of being altright. Also, they often run jokers like Superdell or Gary Johnson for office.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  26. #176
    Board Bookworm happyone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    North Davis County
    Posts
    4,546

    Default

    Unless you are a registered Republican in Davis county (and vote in the primary or caucus), you don't have any say in who will be in the county offices

    IIRC (I sent by ballot in last week) for the county offices - only one county commission race had an opponent and it wasn't a dem - the rest just had a republican nominee

    I may be small, but I'm slow.

    A veteran - whether active duty, retired, or national guard or reserve is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to, "The United States of America ", for an amount of "up to and including my life - it's an honor."

  27. #177
    Chronic Poseur USUC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Riverton, UT
    Posts
    5,010

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    So what’s going on with the Ben/Mia race? Everyone from Utah that I’ve talked to has said it has become an ugly, mudslinging fight, which surprises me given what I know about Ben. Are the ads on the television that bad?

    I also noticed that Ben might even pull it out since he’s pretty much statistically tied with her. I’m hoping he does since I’d like more moderate Dems in the House.
    Is he a moderate? My guess is he is to the left of Jim Matheson. Love just comes across as tired and not wanting to be bothered with campaigning. But Ben is full of shit and just isn't likeable (to me at least). I just moved out of that district. If I was still there I would seriously consider voting for Love instead of my usual libertarian/write in.

  28. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by USUC View Post
    Is he a moderate? My guess is he is to the left of Jim Matheson. Love just comes across as tired and not wanting to be bothered with campaigning. But Ben is full of shit and just isn't likeable (to me at least). I just moved out of that district. If I was still there I would seriously consider voting for Love instead of my usual libertarian/write in.
    Ben’s a really nice and genuine guy, especially for a politician.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

  29. #179
    One man.....one pie Moliere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The Republic of Tejas
    Posts
    20,870

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frank ryan View Post
    Ben’s a really nice and genuine guy, especially for a politician.
    I agree with you but He’s a horrible debater. I watched his recent debate with Mia and his time seemed to be 90% dumb talking points. I still hope he wins though.
    "Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. Uchtdorf

  30. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    I agree with you but He’s a horrible debater. I watched his recent debate with Mia and his time seemed to be 90% dumb talking points. I still hope he wins though.
    I haven’t watched any of the debates.
    "Just watched the speech. He lit up both sides. I loved it." -Shaka

Posting Permissions

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