Comment: Make sure it's true before you keep repeating it

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Many times I have repeated (see in situ)

Make sure it's true before you keep repeating it

You say to "look at any geo-political map of the world and tell me what you see". Well, I run a political mapping business and make political maps from the sub-precinct level up to the Congressional District level for a living, so I can "tell you what I see".

"Geographically organizing a majority" is not really necessary because not everyone is, or can be, registered to vote. A majority of voters is not necessary, either, because not every voter votes in every election, so you have to look at which voters tend to vote in the non-presidential elections (like 2014 is).

I for one, am hard at work, volunteering more hours than I get paid for, to "geographically organize" what's necessary to win. I sure hope that you are, too.

You don't need a majority of likely voters, either, to win Congress. Even if the goal is to elect 218 Representatives to the House (which is not necessary; see next paragraph), you only need a plurality of votes (often, but not always a majority) in 218 of the 435 races. Just look at last year's House elections -- Republican members held the House majority with a 17 seat margin although they did NOT win the total popular vote if you add all House race totals nationwide.

Just using this budget/debt increase "deal" as an example, a combination of 8 new Senators (5-6 taking over current Democrat seats & 2-3 taking GOP ones) is all that was needed to change the vote outcome, if they were Senators caucusing with the Republicans, because that would change the majority leader and control a majority of the Republican caucus. It will come up again, so it matters after 2014 elections.

If the Senate majority depended on a group of liberty Senators to get anything done, do you think that they would be able to negotiate something better than that? If they knew that they had the numbers to pass it, the Senate might be able to pass the House budget that the current majority of the House (230 out of 435) voted for on Sept. 20th, the one without Obamacare funding.

Some Senators just caved on the "raw deal" debt increase because they knew that it would pass and they didn't want to be depicted as "causing a default" if they voted no. With a majority, they could have passed the other things that the House passed. Many of the GOP Senators are unprincipled, for sure, but since we don't have a chance to beat most of them in the next election, why not put their spinelessness to good use.

It may also be possible that just a "liberty majority" of Republican Representatives (at least 110, which is a majority of 218) could control what gets passed in the House. Liberal Democrats were able to control their caucus in previous Congresses, and pass all kinds of monstrous things that some in their caucus (blue dogs) didn't necessarily like.

Also, your list of people (Hebrews, Christians, "Negroes", Atheists, etc.) compares apples to oranges because those specific groups didn't have a vote in the system of that time (i.e. Colonists cited "no taxation without representation" & African-Americans didn't have voting rights pre-15th Amendment). In fact, every one of those injustices was corrected WITHOUT the named group gaining a majority of the vote.

A majority isn't necessary for change either way.