• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Redistricting Plan Thrown Out by Court

danarhea said:
Texas attempted to get a summary judgment against the US Attorney's office, and have it's redistricting plan implemented immediately. They got a rude awakening instead, when the court ruled that the plan's purpose was to dilute the voting strength of minorities. The Texas redistricting map has been thrown out, and the new map will be drawn by the court system.

Here is the actual decision from the court.
Click to expand...

This has been a standard strategy of the GOP for decades now, since the minority voters represent the greatest threat to GOP dominance in the polls.

I'm glad the courts saw through it. Voting needs to be fair.
 
jamesrage said:
Politicians, special interest groups, political groups, judges should have no say in redistricting. It should be based on population and nothing else. I think they should make a computer that redistricts.Race,political affiliations, religious affiliations and other unimportant **** like that should not be taken into account when redistricting.
Click to expand...

I agree. This kind of thing should be incredibly easy to put into a computer; just feed it the basic parameters you want (e.g. districts should be as contiguous and as square-shaped as possible) and let it randomly draw the districts. It's fundamentally anti-democratic for politicians to try to pick their constituents instead of the other way around.
 
danarhea said:
Texas attempted to get a summary judgment against the US Attorney's office, and have it's redistricting plan implemented immediately. They got a rude awakening instead, when the court ruled that the plan's purpose was to dilute the voting strength of minorities. The Texas redistricting map has been thrown out, and the new map will be drawn by the court system.

Here is the actual decision from the court.
Click to expand...

Seriously, I'm at the point where I think we should amend the Constitution because of this.

Instead of the House of Representatives being made up of representatives of single-member districts I think instead the House should use some kind of proportional system state-wide.

This bull**** needs to end, and that's the only way I know of to do so.
 
Temporal said:
This has been a standard strategy of the GOP for decades now, since the minority voters represent the greatest threat to GOP dominance in the polls.

I'm glad the courts saw through it. Voting needs to be fair.
Click to expand...

I hate to tell you this, but it's not just the GOP that does this.

Drawing congressional districts suck.

On one hand, it's understandable to group Democrats together and Republican together so that way they can choose which of their own party to represent them. However, this causes skewed lines.

On the other hand, making competitive districts of both Democrats and Republicans means that more moderate politicians would have to compete in those districts. But what it could also mean is that a number of constituents would be represented by a politician of the opposing party who may dismiss that constituent's concern automatically because of party politics.

I think a multi-district proportional state-wide system would be better. After all, if I'm of one party and my Congressman is of the other party, I likely won't go to him because he wouldn't listen to me. Rather, I'd go to a Congressman who is of my own party. So let's just dispense with all the crap and do this in a sensible way.
 
Captain America said:
GOP attempts at voter manipulation has been rampant as of late. I s'pose the Koch Brothers were unable to buy the Texas judges. The GOP sure has been a joke these days but their jokes are about as funny as a fart in an elevator. Palin, Perry, Bauchmann, Cain, Santorum.... will the insanity ever end? LOL!!!

And people STILL support the GOP? Has insanity taken over the masses? WTF?
Click to expand...

Do you rememeber what the Democrats did in Georgia in 2001?
 
samsmart said:
Seriously, I'm at the point where I think we should amend the Constitution because of this.

Instead of the House of Representatives being made up of representatives of single-member districts I think instead the House should use some kind of proportional system state-wide.

This bull**** needs to end, and that's the only way I know of to do so.
Click to expand...

Two problems with this:

It would be easy for a niche candidate to get support enough to get one seat in the legislature.

The more serious problem is that there is no sense of constituency in such a system. Senate should be at large as it is, but the people's house should be single member districts so that the voters can identify a specific representative that represents them in the House.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
So it's only ok when Northern states gerrymander their districts to concentrate minority voters?
Click to expand...

We certainly hope not. Here in Michigan, the Legislature went through redistricting and the process was controlled by the huge majorities that the GOP has in both houses and control of both the governorship and the state supreme court. When it came to redrawing State House seats, the GOP was clear - it was their goal and their intent and their plan to dilute minority voting strength by packing as many of them as they could into districts which were 85 to 95% minority. The Legislative Black Caucus presented a plan which would have preserved the number of what the law calls majority-minority districts at the current level but it was rejected since it would have allowed at least six Detroit based reps to wander across city boundaries and take on some of the suburban districts. The GOP said HELL NO to that.
 
teamosil said:
I kind of think that ultimately we'll go the way of a computer program, but so far, it doesn't seem like anybody has really nailed what a fair computer program would be.
.
Click to expand...

There will never be a computer program used. Creating absolutely fair districts is not something that either Democrats or Republicans want. Both benefit from the current system, and both want to seize more power in the end.

Take what we have in Minnesota, since I'm more familiar with that than in any other state. Michele Bachmann's district goes from the Wisconsin border up until it reaches halfway to North Dakota. There are 3 area codes in it. It is drawn in such a way to make sure that next to no Democrats live there. But, this benefits the Democrats too, as it contributes to the creation of safe Democratic districts such as Keith Ellison's district (Minneapolis needs to be represented too).

In the end, both parties want things as they are. So.....
 
rocket88 said:
There will never be a computer program used. Creating absolutely fair districts is not something that either Democrats or Republicans want. Both benefit from the current system, and both want to seize more power in the end.

Take what we have in Minnesota, since I'm more familiar with that than in any other state. Michele Bachmann's district goes from the Wisconsin border up until it reaches halfway to North Dakota. There are 3 area codes in it. It is drawn in such a way to make sure that next to no Democrats live there. But, this benefits the Democrats too, as it contributes to the creation of safe Democratic districts such as Keith Ellison's district (Minneapolis needs to be represented too).

In the end, both parties want things as they are. So.....
Click to expand...

I think you are mostly correct on this. One thing that really hits home is that neither political party could afford a system where all elective offices at the state and national level are truly up for grabs because of the expense of mounting both a hotly contested primary and a equally hotly contested general election. For example, I managed a campaign here in Michigan for a State rep seat. There were nine candidates and we finished first with 36% of the vote. We raised and spent about $35k to do that - 90% of it from friends and family. All but $2K of it was used in the primary. And in the general we got 95% of the vote despite doing very little to actually campaign because it is a very safe democratic seat. Out of 110 State Rep seats in Michigan, about 80 are like that. Only about 30 are actually competitive to the point where they switch hands and are decided by five points or less.

Neither party and the vast majority of candidates could afford it otherwise. Every politician fully realizes that. The party structure realizes that. And I suspect academics and reformers realize that also -although perhaps begrudgingly.
 
Tom Delay is rolling in his cell bunk.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've got an idea....get rid of districts period. One voice, one vote.
Click to expand...

Could you explain how that would work in a State like Michigan where you currently have 110 rep districts and 38 Senate districts?
 
haymarket said:
Could you explain how that would work in a State like Michigan where you currently have 110 rep districts and 38 Senate districts?
Click to expand...

Should be pretty simple to figure out.

Say you have 10 seats up for election with 20 people running for those seats. Since voting on computers is becomeing more and more popular it would make this process far more easier. Just have drop down menu's showing each persons name. Once one name is selected that name is removed from the rest of the drop down menu's for each of the following seats.

One state, one voice, one vote.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Should be pretty simple to figure out.

Say you have 10 seats up for election with 20 people running for those seats. Since voting on computers is becomeing more and more popular it would make this process far more easier. Just have drop down menu's showing each persons name. Once one name is selected that name is removed from the rest of the drop down menu's for each of the following seats.

One state, one voice, one vote.
Click to expand...

Not quite following this. Again, Michigan has 110 house seats across the state. Each district is about 70,000 people. I am not clear how my vote is cast or even who I am voting for?
 
Once again, skin color matters to the Government. Color Blind? Post Racial? **** that, America, the country that cannot see past skin color.
 
MrVicchio said:
Once again, skin color matters to the Government. Color Blind? Post Racial? **** that, America, the country that cannot see past skin color.
Click to expand...

Nice ad hominem. And your proof that they were incorrect is...? Oh you don't have any.
 
MrVicchio said:
Once again, skin color matters to the Government. Color Blind? Post Racial? **** that, America, the country that cannot see past skin color.
Click to expand...

It's not skin color, it's partisanship. Black voters tend to vote Democratic. Democrats like to put them together because it means they win that seat. Republicans like it because keeping Democrats out of "their district" means a safe seat for them.

Both parties like safe seats. They will basically agree to create a "ghetto" for certain types of voters because it helps them keep power. They do it to everybody in Minnesota -- the Iron Range up north is largely white, working class, union members who vote for Democrats. Putting them in one district means that the Democrats win, and Michele Bachmann doesn't have to run there.
 
haymarket said:
Not quite following this. Again, Michigan has 110 house seats across the state. Each district is about 70,000 people. I am not clear how my vote is cast or even who I am voting for?
Click to expand...

Forget districts. According to wiki Michigan's population is 9.8+mil. If there are 10 house seats up for election then all 9.8 mil people vote for each of those seats. If there are 110 seats up then all 9.8mil people vote for each of those seats.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've got an idea....get rid of districts period. One voice, one vote.
Click to expand...

You mean a statewide election?

Much harder for minority views to get represented that way. If the state were 55 percent Republican, 100% of those elected would be Republican.
 
Some of this redistricting corruption reads like something out of a third world country.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Forget districts. According to wiki Michigan's population is 9.8+mil. If there are 10 house seats up for election then all 9.8 mil people vote for each of those seats. If there are 110 seats up then all 9.8mil people vote for each of those seats.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out the problem with this.

I have a better idea that you might like - How Proportional Representation Elections Work
 
I think the system should work something like this: there is a statewide, generic party vote. Say this ends up being 45% Republican, 50% Democrat, and 5% independent. There are 7 open seats in the House.

Republicans would automatically get 3 seats (because 45% > 3/7ths).
Democrats would automatically get 3 seats (because 50% > 3/7ths)

You are left with the a vote of 5% independents, roughly 2% Republicans, and roughly 7% Democrats. Democrats would win the last seat.

As for which actual candidates are picked, that would be determined by the results of the party primaries.
 
misterman said:
You mean a statewide election?

Much harder for minority views to get represented that way. If the state were 55 percent Republican, 100% of those elected would be Republican.
Click to expand...

Last I knew everyone that was allowed to vote were ALL Americans. I'm sick of this whole minority crap. Everyone is treated the same under the law.
 
Redirecting should be done by a non-partisan group of citizen with representation from all political life and rules based on population and nothing else. If the US is truly non racists now, then people of colour should have no problem being elected in mostly white districts and visa versa, and hence the civil rights era laws and idea of having districts based on race to make sure there is black representation should be killed off. This would prevent the gerrymandering of today since they are using those laws and ideas as an excuse.

As it stands now both political parties and especially the GOP in Texas, are using redistricting to shore up their political future. Take Rick Perry's hometown.. before De Lay and Rick Perry got their grubby hands into the redistricting last time, this area was a democratic area. After the redistricting the area was split into two and incorporated in 2 other areas who were mostly republican. In essence the Perry home town lost its representation because of political gerrymandering. Now I could some what understand it if it was due to a population shift in the area, but since that was never part of the consideration of De Lay and co back then, then this move was nothing but anti-democratic. And it shows, since the chances of the Democrats taking over the Texas legislative are so remote that you almost have a bigger chance in winning in the lottery.

There should be no "sure" seats.
 
An update on this story: The Texas courts have redrawn the map for the 2012 elections. It looks like a pretty big victory for the Democrats, although it's temporary because the legislature will get a chance to draw the map again in a less abusive way after the next election.

Democrats win big with Texas court's redistricting map - TheHill.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom