Gerrymandering in US States

[_moksha]

Each party gets $2.76 for each vote cast for the party. So if you get 2 million you get 2 million times $2.76

Was this based on the Australian Dollar to Euro exchange rate at the time this formula was created?

[_subgenius]

... And the US calls itself a democracy

nope, you are, once again, confused by lowest common denominator branding of the DNC.
We accurately and appropriately call ourselves a Republic...even have a pledge of allegiance on the matter.

[_subgenius]

And the US calls itself a democracy

Is the situation better in Australia?

Not even.
They are a federal parliamentary democracy and a Commonwealth realm.
Their chief of state is still the Queen, represented in country by their Governor General.
Their High Court is not an autonomous branch of government, it acts via counsel from government.
Voting is compulsory at +18yo.

[_EAllusion]

... And the US calls itself a democracy

nope, you are, once again, confused by lowest common denominator branding of the DNC.
We accurately and appropriately call ourselves a Republic...even have a pledge of allegiance on the matter.

I’m always fascinated by who believes this sophomoric line. The Venn diagram of this who think it and those who point it out in ignorant condescension is basically a circle, but I also have a can’t look away from a car wreck thing for that too.

P.S. They aren’t mutually exclusive categories. Call whomever taught you American government and apologize or have them apologize to you. Whichever is appropriate.

[_aussieguy55]

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commenta ... y-utah-is/

Interesting example of this in Utah.

[_EAllusion]

New theory: Subs hates Democrats because their long-form name evolved from Democratic-Republicans and that term confuses and angers him.

[_moksha]

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/08/26/commentary-utah-is/

An interesting example of this in Utah.

Utah adds an extra dimension since its gerrymandered lines tend to keep both Democrats and non-Mormons out of the State Legislature. Keeping the non-Mormons out became increasingly difficult until Utah, in essence, became a one-party state due to the LDS Church adopting right-wing politics and throwing its allegiance to the Republican Party.

[_Gunnar]

https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commentary/2018/08/26/commentary-utah-is/

An interesting example of this in Utah.

Utah adds an extra dimension since its gerrymandered lines tend to keep both Democrats and non-Mormons out of the State Legislature. Keeping the non-Mormons out became increasingly difficult until Utah, in essence, became a one-party state due to the LDS Church adopting right-wing politics and throwing its allegiance to the Republican Party.

And yet, Salt Lake City's apparently very popular Mayor, Jackie Biskupski, Is not only a non-Mormon and a liberal Democrat, but is also openly gay! She was also reelected 6 times to the Utah State Legislature before retiring from that to run for Mayor.

[_subgenius]

….P.S. They aren’t mutually exclusive categories.

P.S.S. Yes, they are (see also Webster's dictionary and whatever American Civics textbook you never cracked open, and see also US Constitution).

James Madison:
“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security of rights of property: and have in general been as short lived in their duration as they have been violent in their Deaths.”

James Adams:
"Remember, Democracy never lasts long, it soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself..."

[_Kevin Graham]

"It must be acknowledged that the term 'republic' is of very vague application in every language... Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite idea, I would say purely and simply it means a government by its citizens in mass, acting directly and personally according to rules established by the majority; and that every other government is more or less republican in proportion as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of direct action of the citizens." --Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816.

For Jefferson a pure republic and a pure democracy are quite the same.

https://mises.org/wire/why-james-madiso ... -democracy

Today, many conservatives like to claim that "the Founding Fathers" opposed democracy and supported less majoritarian republics.

However, as is nearly always the case whenever "the Founding Fathers" are involved, a more accurate statement would be "some Founding Fathers" condemned democracy. Indeed, many of the Founding Fathers — especially among the Anti-Federalists, openly described themselves as being in favor of "democracy" and "the democratical spirit."

This is no coincidence.

By attacking democracy, Madison was attempting to discredit the more decentralized and more democratic state governments that were preventing the sort of powerful and centralized government that Madison wanted.

Thus, Madison sought to condemn localized government that was close to the people, and substitute a vast, less-representative "republic" that was the be the playground of a small number of powerful men — all at taxpayer expense, of course.

Thanks to the political realities of the time, Madison couldn't come right out and condemn the state governments, lest he look too radical. So, he employed subterfuge and a definition for democracy that could then be used to insinuate that the state government were too close to "mob rule" and must be reined in.

Specifically, Madison defined a democracy as "a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person." These societies, Madison contended "have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention."

Now, obviously, none of the US states at the time fit this description, strictly speaking. There was no "direct democracy," and every state employed elected representatives.

Notice that the basic definition of democracy is just a "government by the people." Notice also that a more specific definition includes a government by representatives of the people. To say that the Founding Fathers were opposed to democracy is absurd. Their whole purpose was to establish government by the people. They called their government a "republic," which is a form of democracy, but it is not a "pure" democracy. Confusion arises when "democracy," a generic term, is equated with "PURE democracy," a specific kind of democracy which ours is not. James Madison outlined the problems with democracies in his Federalist Paper #10.