What's Next for the Republican Party?

[yodajazz]

Here's my theory: I think the political makeup of Congress and largely be explained by gerrymandering. So in that sense "borders" make all the difference. By and large, in most States the population is concentrated in a few urban cities. The population of these urban centers lean democratic. There are fewer people living in the rural areas, towns and small cities. This largely conservative population (being spread out over a larger area) is partitioned into many more districts. So the representatives from these areas outnumber the urban representatives; i.e. instead of favoring the majority of people, the system favors the majority of districts. With gerrymandering one can secure a given representative's seat for a long time. Unfortunately, in a relatively recent decision, the Supreme Court bestowed its imprimatur upon the practice.


The Senate is elected differently, since there are exactly two senators per State. Besides the popular vote a Senator usually needs name recognition and of course she always needs monied backers.

Gerrymandering was certainly true here in Ohio. The Republican led state legislators, in 2012, made a long snake-like congressional district that covered nearly half the state, linking two of the top four urban areas. So that two progressive Democrat incumbent have to run against each other. Thus insuring one less democratic US Congressman. The two Congressional members were Marcy Kaptur and Dennis Kucinich. If you are not familiar with either of them, look them up. I only became aware of Kaptur, when made a strong scathing speech against the Wall Street bail-out in 2008. She is Ohio longest serving Congressperson. the district was not even continuously connect by land. But it made legal requirements, because of connecting bridge between. two areas. Here are two maps of Ohio's 9th Congressional district. One additional thing, Oberlin, Ohio is a very progressive college town and that makes the longest north-south area. If this isn't gerrymandering, they should remove the term fromthe dictionary.

[Stavros]

Thanks to Trish and Yodajazz for clarifying boundary issues in Congressional Districts (which obviously does not apply to the Senate). Surely there must be a way to challenge that daft boundary in Ohio-?
I wonder why there are fewer Congressional districts in the USA than there are House of Commons constituencies in the UK, does a smaller pool of voters improve their access to legislators?

I wonder if the departure of Mr Boehner (I am tempted to call him The Grim Weeper) will fracture the Republican Party and lead to a loss of votes?

[trish]

Most other States are just a bad as Ohio. Iowa on the other hand is not gerrymandered; it, for the most part, nice rectangular districts. But it suffers other defects, the their caucus system for nominating presidential candidates. I'm not even sure how it works (or doesn't).

In most State district borders are redrawn every ten years (to the benefit of the party that happens to be in power). There are always State specific petitions going around to dispense with the gerrymandering system. The backers of such movements don't always have the purest of motivations. As far as I know, none of the efforts ever came close to changing any particular State's gerrymandering policies.

"Grim Weeper" I love it! Hope you don't mind if I use it on occasion. The fact that Boehner's gone, is evidence that the party is already fractured. His absence may give the anti-U.S.Government obstructionists in the party a tad more say. On the other hand, Boehner's replacement ('Who?' is the question) may be someone who can control those nuts and steer the party through the reef of dysfunction in which it currently finds itself. Naw...never mind.

[fred41]

John Boehner makes one of the funniest goofy faces when he cries...but I can't make fun of him for that because, I too, have a tendency to 'well up' at the drop of a hat (...please don't tell anyone...lol).
Judging by some of the hate directed at the man from a large portion of any 'comments' section, in any conservative news portion of a site devoted to his stepping down, he was probably a lot more rational than than some folks give him credit for.
Regardless of what the intent for the Tea Party was originally, it is now just a group of people filled with hate, that think they are right because they can scream the loudest. They are absolutely destroying a political party that they are not really a part of, but truly believe that every Republican that doesn't think like them is a RINO...when, in fact, they are the RINOs.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=trish;1638095]

In most State district borders are redrawn every ten years (to the benefit of the party that happens to be in power). There are always State specific petitions going around to dispense with the gerrymandering system. The backers of such movements don't always have the purest of motivations. As far as I know, none of the efforts ever came close to changing any particular State's gerrymandering policies.
--I think this is the kind of decision-making that should be taken out of state and given to what in the UK we call a 'Boundary Commission', perhaps established by the Supreme Court? One that would make decisions on the basis of geography, population density, income differentiation to take three. If it is a decision made by local politicians I don't know that anyone would be satisfied with that.

"Grim Weeper" I love it! Hope you don't mind if I use it on occasion.
-A 5% return on capital would be sufficient to meet my needs...

[Stavros]

John Boehner makes one of the funniest goofy faces when he cries...but I can't make fun of him for that because, I too, have a tendency to 'well up' at the drop of a hat (...please don't tell anyone...lol).
Judging by some of the hate directed at the man from a large portion of any 'comments' section, in any conservative news portion of a site devoted to his stepping down, he was probably a lot more rational than than some folks give him credit for.
Regardless of what the intent for the Tea Party was originally, it is now just a group of people filled with hate, that think they are right because they can scream the loudest. They are absolutely destroying a political party that they are not really a part of, but truly believe that every Republican that doesn't think like them is a RINO...when, in fact, they are the RINOs.

It would be easy from the UK to ridicule the GOP, particularly the current group of Presidential candidates, but that is mainly because the theatre and the language of politics is different from what it is in the UK. I wonder, without knowing where the GOP is headed over the next 18 months, why there seems to be no hope for a 'third force' in US politics. It used to be Labour and the Conservatives in the UK with the Liberal Party (these days Liberal Democrats) hovering in the shadows and only in 2010 winning enough seats to become part of the Coalition although it collapsed (again) in 2015.

But the ascendancy of the Scottish National Party, and the United Kingdom Independence Party (more successful in elections to the European Parliament then the one in London) has challenged the duopoly and created a major problem for Labour in Scotland, yet the same diversion of voter loyalty doesn't seem to exist in the USA where, I imagine, there could be an independence party in California, if only because they bang on about it so much.

How do you Americans see the 'third force' party argument, and would it be more likely to challenge the Republican than the Democrat Parties? It appears to be more of a problem for the Republican Party, but I cannot be sure. And there may be regional variations -?

[fred41]

How do you Americans see the 'third force' party argument, and would it be more likely to challenge the Republican than the Democrat Parties? It appears to be more of a problem for the Republican Party, but I cannot be sure. And there may be regional variations -?

I believe neither party would like a third candidate, because either party could potentially be hurt...although it doesn't always turn out that way...When Ralph Nader ran with the Green Party in 2000, some Democrats never forgave him because they believe that it was his fault that Gore lost to Bush. Nader himself claimed that exit polls show that it was fairly evenly split among his voters: 25% would've voted Bush, 38% would've voted Gore and the rest wouldn't have voted at all. When Ross Perot ran in '92, his votes would've been evenly split between Bush Sr. and Clinton.

[trish]

I think this is the kind of decision-making that should be taken out of state and given to what in the UK we call a 'Boundary Commission', perhaps established by the Supreme Court? One that would make decisions on the basis of geography, population density, income differentiation to take three. If it is a decision made by local politicians I don't know that anyone would be satisfied with that.

A few years ago there was a petition in Illinois, a Democratic State, to have the lines drawn by an independent commission. The petition (of course) was sponsored by the Republicans and it was never very clear who would be seated on the commission. Having the party by happenstance in charge redraw the lines every ten years, might be better than to have the lines always drawn by a board headed up by CEOs and other assorted men with finely tailored suits. But I agree - if set up properly-the lines should be drawn by truly independent commission. I'm fairly naive when it comes to politics, but it's always been a puzzle to me why we periodically draw up districts when the States are already partitioned permanently into counties?

Sporadically we've had third party candidates in the past. Andersen, Perot, Nader. Rather than drawing evenly from both parties, they have been candidates that draw their support largely from one of the existing parties. Nader, for example, appealed basically to environmentalists and drew them away from the Democratic Party. He is probably the reason Bush got close enough to steal the election from Gore. It's the reason the Republican's wanted Trump to take a pledge of loyalty to their party and promise not to run as a third party candidate.

[trish]

Nader himself claimed that exit polls show that it was fairly evenly split among his voters: 25% would've voted Bush, 38% would've voted Gore and the rest wouldn't have voted at all. When Ross Perot ran in '92, his votes would've been evenly split between Bush Sr. and Clinton.

I did not know that. Still, the fear exists.

[Stavros]

Rupert Murdoch, that great American, has been issuing tweets in praise of Ben Carson. Is this an awakening moment for the the GOP?

Rupert Murdoch ✔ @rupertmurdoch Ben and Candy Carson terrific. What about a real black President who can properly address the racial divide? And much else.
1:59 AM - 8 Oct 2015

http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...didate-twitter