A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
October 31, 2003Redistricting: News From the FrontI'm new to this site; I am a network software entrepreneur trying to start a new company. My politics are moderate, pro-war Democrat. A group blog appeals to me because I don't have to feel like my blog is dying if I don't keep a minimum posting level, and this blog has some nice, thoughtful rants that match my politics and thinking well. So this looks like a good spot for me to rant. I want to thank Rick and the current team for giving me a space, and I hope my stuff doesn't totally bore you. Because I live in Austin, in the CENTRAL TEXAS district redistricted to REACH THE SEA (that takes a bit of doing in Texas) (Doggett district both old and new, for other Texans reading this), I want to comment a bit more on the redistricting. I was intrigued to see that DeLay's first priority was gittin' Austin (maps introduced by other Republicans didn't do that). Not central Dallas or Houston (other liberal Texan areas), but Austin. Guess we're more threatening, possibly for our moderacy... It's the same fear, of course, that the Taliban feels toward all of us. This might backfire on the Republicans, depending on if our candidates think of it. The Republicans have won big by being less threatening than Democrats since Bush became Governor. Bush didn't allow this kind of screwup. In the meantime, Democratic candidates were slavering at the mouth about how Bush has doomed democracy (there's a good idea, NOT: make most of your message be about how evil a man with sky-high local approval ratings is). But now that Bush is gone, it's open season for smallness from both parties. If Texas media and candidates remind people about this during the elections, the GOP could pay big, by losing independent and moderate Democratic voters. Here is an excellent American-Statesman article by local humorist John Kelso on the subject of what he wants to see in a Congressman. In another column on the subject, he pointed out that, like the infamous district in North Carolina that came to the Supreme Court a few years ago, Doggett could run down all his constituents by driving along one highway with his doors open. Posted by Jon Kay at October 31, 2003 02:39 AMComments
Hi John, and welcome. I have a similar response to the form of anti-Bush rhetoric we see. Bush was here in Columbus, Ohio yesterday. And there were organized protests against him. The clip they showed on the news, at least, involved a bunch of them shouting "Impeach Bush!" over and over. Now, that may not reflect the form or content of the rest of the protest. Maybe the snippet they pulled out was the worst of it. But, honestly, for people willing to spend the time to make their thoughts known on Bush, could they perhaps spend a few moments thinking about how best to get their point across? Shouting "Impeach Bush" automatically puts you in the wingnut category in the minds of average Americans. So, what have you done exactly? Shown people that you have to be a nutcase to dislike Bush? Protesters are mostly unaware, I think, that they often accomplish the opposite of their goal. Posted by: William Swann at October 31, 2003 10:53 AMYeah, it's deeply troubling that roughly 9 or 10 out of 11 of the democratic candidates seem to feel the key to winning the nomination is to pander to the anti-war wingnuts, and to do so using simplistic negative rhetoric devoid of any description of a realistic and responsible alternative. Yesterday someone put it pretty straightforward for me (I think it was someone that Michael Totten linked to) when they asked "Remember when liberals criticized the administration for NOT deposing dictators?" Redistricting has been one of the worst manifestations of the disgraces of partisanship for what, a century or more? I'm from Massachusetts, which I'm pretty sure gave birth to the term "gerrymander" because there once was a congressman Gerry who blatantly redistricted in his own favor. I think it's past time that some serious restrictions be put in place to handcuff this sort of partisan hackery. Off the top of my head, here are a few ideas: no district with an area greater than 10 square miles may be more than twice as long as it is wide; no region with an urban population density (500 people per square mile? 1000? Less? More? not sure.) may be broken into a number of districts that is more than one greater than the minimum possible number of districts(For example, if districts were to be roughly made up of 100,000 people and a city had a population of 374,000, the minimum number of possible districts would be 4, so it could not be broken up into more than 5 districts. Posted by: brian keegan at October 31, 2003 12:38 PMThat sounds like a great start, Brian. In addition, any redistricting should be done by a completely independent, unbiased, non-political commission or group. I think the only way we would ever have completely fair districts is to not let the politicians have anything to do with setting them up. Posted by: Heather at October 31, 2003 12:55 PMWelcome from a former Austinite. I've been following the redistricting issue from afar. Posted by: Yehudit at October 31, 2003 09:06 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
