Comments on: Redistricting update

By: Sean Aqui

Sean Aqui — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:54:59 +0000

Rich: I think it’s legitimate to want to be represented by someone who will actually advocate your interests. It seems to me that a small wealthy neighborhood attached to a district that is overwhelming urban poor has roughly zero chance of getting its voice heard. The reverse is true, as well.

“So what?” you say, and I generally agree. It’s no different than being a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, or vice versa. And as I note, it’s a very subjective criteria that should apply only at the margins, if at all. But I think it’s a legitimate concern, even if it’s not a compelling one in the overall scheme of things.

By: Rich Horton

Rich Horton — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:45:30 +0000

“A suburban neighborhood on the edge of the city, for instance, is better grouped with a suburban district with similar demographics than an urban district with which it has nothing in common.”

I don’t get this at all. I mean, every state has Senators who have the responsibility of representing everyone in the state no matter how different neighborhoods are. Somehow they manage to do that. I actually think it would be PREFERABLE to have some wealthy suburban districts also include more working class urban areas in their districts. The desire to have homogenous districts is an anti-democratic impulse. It is the reason we do not have competitive districts in the first place.

And Geography? Where would that matter in this day and age? 100+ years ago, ok, you might not want districts to cross major rivers. But today where does that matter?

Make districts contiguous and compact and everything will work out. You will actually have candidates who will need to present a moderate political outlook in many places that now feed more extreme views.

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 22:13:08 +0000

So-called “political districts” exist for one reason, political hegemony. They serve to guarantee the dominance of the two parties which monopolize the American political system. They trade off the seats of power between them, insuring that where one doesn’t control a specific aspect of the American socioeconomic landscape the other will.

This is directly tied to the institution of the electoral college, where one-dollar equals one-vote instead of one-person one-vote.

The quintessence of carving up a cake and dividing it before it has even been baked.