A new and weird political map

It takes a bit of imagination but it looks like a flying chicken hawk. So it looks like Bush and Cheney have left their mark on the country.

I like Lake Michigan. But do we really need to draw more attention to that dillywhacker we call Florida? If only we could find a way to secede Florida and ship it out into the Atlantic. Look how gross it looks now. A big throbbing mass of..... oh god, I can't go on.

Oh God!
Look what 12 years of Republicanism has done to America!!

What a ugly nightmare map

I must be in that red area to the west that looks like a raggedy pair of chaps.
See that little blue dot? That must be me, Unlettered, and Bubba combined.

I like it.It's getting bluer.

Song sung blue.............

Billy's back and i'm smoking -----!!!

Wait a minute....Something's not right here.

"That is, districts are drawn with a size proportional not to their sheer topographic acreage – which has little to do with politics – but to the number of their inhabitants, districts with more people appearing larger than districts with fewer, regardless of their actual area on the ground."

Congressional districts are supposed to all contain a roughly equal population. (646952 people on average after the 2000 Census) That's why a state like Wyoming has only one district that's very large in area.

Is the map based on population DENSITY, rather than actual poulation? If so, the map is still tied to the geographic area of the district, it's just showing the inverse.

Yo, C. Mo @ Bubba.....I know it's not a popular notion out in our neck of the woods, but could we just do away with the Electoral College? Then we wouldn't have all this talk of red states, blue states, yada, yada. In addition, we "apostates" could actually cast a presidential ballot that meant something. As it is we are totally disenfranchised. And while we're at it, perhaps we could re-introduce term limits. Wasn't that supposed to be part of Newt's Contract ON America?

unl,

A Const. amend. is needed.

But really, we need to at least change the beast to proportional voting, at least, in my opinion.

If a state goes 40/60, then the EC votes go 40/60.

This is not a popular idea. Too much like democracy and the will of the people. Leads to socialism.

C.Mo...Proportional voting would be a start, then Repubs would only get 90% of EC votes. I think California tried to introduce a "back door" popular vote, but it got shot down. So much for tryin.

"Weird looking" doesn't begin to describe it. It looks like a Rorschach test. I bet less than half of our countrymen would be unable to identify that the representation has anything to do with the continental U.S.

I would like to see a congressional map of the U.S. just to see how we have been divided into all of this weird shapes, with some districts running for miles in a thin line.

C Morris

I would go for proportional distribution (as a Republican in Chicago, I'd like my vote to mean something again) but I have an uneasy feeling about eliminating the EC. I have this vision of presidential candidates campaigning in about three heavily populated states each (a different set per party) trying for overwhelming majorities in populous states and ignoring the Idahos and Vermonts (although it would be fair if they ignored NH for a few decades).

Add a runoff system if nobody gets 50% and you not only avoid a lot of controversy (IMHO one of the reasons behind the recent growth of political incivility is 12 years of Presidents for whom the majority voted against) but allows for a viable third party. I'm sure the invitation still stands to the Fedora Party.

RRD

unlettered,

We already have term limits. There called elections. Although the process is flawed.

The Electoral College just bothers me, it goes against my Democratic grain. And yet RRD raises a good point about how it empowers sparcely populated the states. (Although I don't think the framers had that in mind first and foremost.) Proprtional voting may be the best solution.

But one constitutional ammendment at a time, folks -- the runoff system should be the first priority, in my opinion.

I just noticed I omitted a word (per John Kerry), which distorts the meaning, or makes it sound more flippant than was intended, on the post above. I really think proportional voting has some merits, and when I made the comment that Repubs would "only get 90% of the EC vote, I meant in Utah, or Idaho (Mo&I).

RRD,
"I'd like my vote to mean something again"

Good one. This is the matter at hand.

Now, many people don't feel their vote counts. With a proportional system, it seems to me, a vote in Idaho or SD would count as much as a vote NY.

The 50% runoff plan is absolutely required, I agree. I don't care if it's expensive. Who ever said freedom was cheap?

Go ahead and keep the EC as an institution, but do to it what the Brits did to the House of Lords. Figureheads only.

Also; It has to happen in all 50 states at once. Tuff one.

Further; We need a national primary day. My primary vote has never counted for anything since my first vote in 1972.

unlettered,

Agree re; getting 10% of the Idaho/Utah vote. It's only fair.
Also, the Republicans would get the 30/40% of Mass., and NY vote.

RRD,
Excellent point on the EC. But I think the existence of the EC breeds great apathy for the masses. Many younger voters believe that their votes don't matter so they simply abstain. Since we live in an age of immediate information, I wouldn't be too concerned about campaigning missing the smaller states. Then again, rural Idaho has been pretty slow on the uptake and the Pony Express sometimes looks pretty good.