10/13 The Soviet Republic of Texas
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21839-2003Oct13.html
\_ Well, all the partisan posturing aside, what is the right way
to create districts? -- ilyas
\_ Don't let politicians do it.
\_ yep.
\_ This is avoiding the question. The article implied that
high reelection rates are somehow bad, equating high turnover
with healthy democracy. It's not clear that this is right.
While low turnover may be indicative of lack of
While low turnover may be indicated of lack of
democracy, like in Soviet Union, it may also be indicative
of voter satisfaction. Also, assuming a particular state
has a definite political majority, does it not seem fair
to district in such a way as to reflect this? (Not to say
Texas is necessarily such a state). The writer of the
article clearly didn't like Texan redistricting, but failed
to point out a standard to which districting should adhere.
It's easy to be a critic.
\_ It depends on why there are high reelection rates. In the
case of highly gerrymandered states like Ca and soon to be
Texas, it is because the minority party voters are being
disenfranchised. Their candidates *can't* win because
the lines are drawn to guarantee this.
\_ Fair enough-- it's also easy to go along with the
rowdies when they kvetch and scream loudly. Ignoring
the article for a moment, the correct way to create
districts is the way it was originally intended: by
population numbers, not politics. Each state has a
number of Representatives based on its population;
create districts to reflect that and let the voters
decide themselves on the person they want to elect.
When compared with a fair and balanced plan like this,
DeLay's plan to redistrict along voting lines is
exposed as the naked power-grab that it is.
\_ You are pointing out features of districting that
any districting plan whatsoever has. 'Letting the
voters decide' sounds great in theory, but how do you
actually draw the lines? In each geographic area, there
are political minorities and majorities. How is
districting to be done?
\_ Start at the border. Draw a modified rectangle
that incorporates the shape of the border. Make
the rectangle large enough to incorporate a
fraction of the population that reflects the
population of the state divided by the number
representatives allowed. Add more rectangles
until you've run out of districts. Adjust
rectangles to equally absorb segments of population
not incorporated into existing rectangles.
\_ What if political affiliations are geographically
segregated? (Not a very farfetched assumption,
btw).
\_ As long as you pick an arbitrary (random,
perhaps?) corner to begin with, you'll have
at least taken a stab at fairness. If the
end result is a corner where one party or
the other holds significant sway, then so
be it. Vox populi, and all that.
\_ The problem with this is people aren't equally
spread throughout the state or even counties.
We already have county lines. We should use
those. Larger counties elect more people, while
the least populated elect the minimum of 1.
\_ First, counties are geographical, not
population-based, so there's no even
distribution whatsoever there. Second,
how do you determine who gets sent from a
county? By divvying up the county into
smaller districts? You'll get a great
picture of each district, but you'll lose
your view of the state as a whole.
\_ But these are supposed to be local reps to
the state level government. I don't see
anything wrong with my local rep to the
state being representative of who I am and
what my local concerns are. If my local
rep doesn't represent me, who does? Why
did I vote for them? Part of the reason
so few vote is the feeling of disconnect
between the people we vote for and what
\_ 1) Local rep is a misnomer: your local
rep represents your district, not
your immediate locale. 2) If your
district rep doesn't represent you or
fails to represent you after being
elected, campaign to have him/her
recalled or ejected at the next
election. If you can convince the
majority of your peers, you'll be on
your way.
It's easy to be a critic.
they do afterwards.
\_ PLEASE! Come to Cali, where re-districting the opposite way gets
no attention. Use your head - Cali - massive gun restrictions -
liberal bastion, Texas - exposed gun permitted - the opposite.
\_ What the hell are you trying to say?
\_ The problem with politicians creating districts is that over the
years, the majority party will create districts such that the
minority party becomes the zero party. Texas Republicans are
following in the footsteps of California Democrats on this one.
Republicans make roughly 40% of CA voters but have zero state wide
posts and a continously shrinking number of local ones. The
majority party in every state always uses redistricting to punish
the minority party and provide guaranteed lockin of their own for
future elections. You can't allow politicians to draw the lines.
The really sickeningly gerrymandered stuff eventually ends up in
front of a judge but only after decades of abuse. The mildly
sick stuff never goes to court.
\_ The problem with your theory is that the California Republicans
agreed with the redistricting of CA in 2000 and supported it.
It passed 65-8. Only 8 voted against it.
\_ No, that only confirms it. They needed a few votes to pass
and created enough majority Republican districts to keep
those few folks in power. Everyone else gets screwed. The
district lines should not be a political issue. It's too
important to trust to the people most affected by it.
\_ Right symptoms, wrong problem. Gerrymandering creates districts
which can easily be labelled Republican or Democratic. So each
representative is less likely to vote counter to his party lest
draw the ire of the local voters, thus creating more gridlock.
\_ I cover this in my reply above. Yes, some in the minority
liberal bastion, Texas - exposed gun permitted - the opposite.
party will vote to save their own ass. They'll get burned
later. |
http://csua.com/feed/