A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
February 22, 2004Can we all agree on this?Calpundit and other bloggers were discussing gerrymandering: So here's an interesting thing. Our little group spanned the gamut from pretty conservative to pretty liberal, and while we disagreed about almost everything, there was one thing we all agreed on pretty enthusiastically: gerrymandering is bad. And it's gotten a lot worse. I'm in favor of a bi-partisan redistricting like Iowa's. The redistricting panel has an even number from each party. The legislature can't change what they propose, only accept or reject. Thus Iowa has some swing districts. The thing we must recognize is that partisan redistricting results in SAFE districts -- and that results in the most partisan demogogue (right or left) winning and keeping the seat. All in favor, say 'Aye'! Posted by Erasmus at February 22, 2004 11:36 PMComments
Aye! I wish there was some way we could outlaw gerrymandering. Somehow I just can't see California's legislators going for bi-partisan redistricting. If they ever did, I might have second thoughts about wanting to get out of the state! Posted by: Heather Feuerhelm at February 23, 2004 12:32 AMA big YES on killing the gerrymander. The worst thing about modern elections is that most of them aren't. We're rapidly being reduced to a one-party nation, that of the Incumbent Party. Posted by: Tully at February 23, 2004 12:39 AMYup, I think carped about gerrymandering a couple of times recently. You should see my district. I'd be in favor of some type of regulation that restricted the shape of any district that was more than say 50 square miles in size, so that it couldn't be more than 2.5 times as long as it was wide, or something like that. I also like the idea of a committee with an EVEN number of members of each party. Posted by: bk at February 23, 2004 09:13 AMI suspect that bipartisan gerrymandering will simply devolve into the same sort of mess that gerrymandering does. After all, logrolling isn't that uncommon in state legislatures, and there is nothing to stop partisans from 'trading off' safe seats to make everyone happy. There might be a few swing seats, but my best guess is that these will eventually result in safe seats growing out of the mess. A point about bipartisan gerrymandering. How does this work in a state that is overwhelmingly D or R? Why should there be an equal number of commission members in a state that is overwhelmingly democratic, for instance? For that matter, what about third- (or fourth-, or fifth-) parties? While we are at it, what about all of the challenges to whatever results are generated? These things spend more and more time in the courts as is, and I suspect that these 'reforms' are only going to make it worse... Don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of gerrymandering, but I am skeptical of the solutions that I see proposed. Posted by: Scott at February 23, 2004 05:19 PMWhy not take it away from the political process altogether and create the districts from census tracts -- maybe even let the Census Bureau do it. One rule that the areas MUST meet certain geographical stipulations like keeping them as rectangular as possible... Posted by: Heather Feuerhelm at February 23, 2004 08:12 PM
You folks are second-guessing the Founders you know. Apportionment amongst the States has to occur from time to time, and the Founders did everything that they could to keep all election-governing matters before the State legislatures, those democratic bodies closest and most accountable to the People. By creating some kind of BS "bipartisan" commissions, you're simply handing the reins of the Republic to whomever can co-opt the commissions first. And that's not even going into what it would do to third parties... regards/ Amen, brother! Although there is one benefit of my virtual It sure seems like the dissenters are pretty cynical. I for one lean towards cynicism myself. But I do try to limit my "it'll never work" and "it'll be even worse" claims. At some point you have to have at least a little faith that in a democracy you can identify some sort of problem and make it better, or why even bother. I think a pretty susbstantial majority of regular people understands the sensibility of the notion that when it comes to the idea of regional representation, they usually have more in common with the people in the next town over than they do with the people 6 or 8 towns over. And unless the people make an issue of it, our politicians will continue to have no shame about how they do things. Take a look at Barney Frank's district, the 4th district, by going here. Posted by: bk at February 24, 2004 09:30 AM |
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?
|
