Monthly Archives: March 2017

Inspection- No More Russia-ing to Acceptance

by Ken Carman

 And the push for normalization is on, even from that former bastion for news and honest analysis: NPR. Now the analysis is…
 ”This is nothing new. There’s little evidence it had much affect; we just need to be aware what it looks like. InspectionRussia has been trying to affect elections everywhere and have been doing it for a long time…”
 Equally countered with, “Officer, can’t you let me go? I didn’t get any money when I robbed that convenience store. I have been trying to successfully rob them for a long time. Since I’m not all that successful…”
 And an equally fictional, and quite impossible, “Putin and his cronies tried to get Hillary elected? Oh, so what? They’ve been doing this for a long time with little effect…” As we all know, the right wing would have been so forgiving if the situation had been flipped. After all, we should just get over it, they would say to their fellow partisans. Hillary’s president now…
  And, if you believe that, you’re deranged, clueless, stupid or… lying almost as much as Donald Trump. Read more

Republican Rigging Part 2: The De Facto Constitutional Rigging of the Senate.

Written by Robert Warden

It has occurred to me that the way Senators are apportioned, 2 per state, favors smaller, more rural, less populous states, which tend to vote for Republicans compared to larger states. The most glaring example of this relative disenfranchisement of voters in more populous states is my state, California, which has the largest population. In order to do an actual, numerical examination of this issue, I found the percentage of the U.S. population in each state, according to the most recent estimates (2016), and also whether the 2 Senators from each state are Democrats, Republicans, or one of each. (I used to be known for data crunching in my blogs years ago, as a trained researcher and statistician, although these are little amateur projects that I can easily do on my home computer. LOL However, I had gotten away from the numerical analyses for a while.)

Here are the sources of my data: Read more

Republican Rigging Part 3: The Gerrymandering Problem


Jerold Irwin “Jerry” Mander (born May 1, 1936)[1] is an American activist and author, best known for his 1977 book, Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television. His most recent book, The Capitalism Papers, argues against Capitalism as a sustainable and viable system on which to base an economy.


First of all, let me clarify something. This person is not the problem. In fact, it appears that he is on our side (

Having taken care of that detail, let it be clear that I am writing about the drawing of congressional boundaries to maximize the number of elected politicians of a particular party. How this happens, is that after a census, in every year ending in a zero, state legislatures are commissioned to redraw district boundaries for the members of the House of Representatives. This is made necessary because after 10 years, some states gain or lose congress members, and congressional districts themselves gain or lose population so that they no longer contain approximately the same number of residents. Given this task, the party with majority representation in the state legislature, can dictate the new boundaries of congressional districts, with relatively little opposition if that party holds majorities in both houses of the state legislature as well as the governorship. That might seem like a fairly uncommon scenario on the surface, but in fact, because individual states tend to be heavily tilted toward either Republicans or Democrats, this is apparently the case in most states. Only “purple states” are likely to have a mixture of parties at these 3 levels. Thus, the majority party tends to act in such a way as to perpetuate and even increase its majority by drawing as many favorable districts as possible. Basically, what happens is that the voters who tend to vote for the minority party in the state, are relegated to a few districts where they have a huge majority (perhaps 90% for instance) and “safe seats,” while the majority party draws as many districts as possible which have a sufficient majority of people who vote for their party, such as 55 to 60%, which is enough with reliable voters to be fairly certain of victory. This is also a racial issue, by the way, because with Republican gerrymandering, racial minorities tend to be relegated to a few urban districts, and thus once again, denied proportionate representation. Read more

« Older Entries