Texas redistricting

Gerrymandering is old as the hills, and should be stopped when it gets excessive. Here, it was clearly excessive and wasn't stopped. What comes around, goes around. Sometime in the future, the Repubs will pay dearly when the shoe is on the other foot.
 
FirstFreedom,
Not just Republicans, all of us. We're already paying the price now due to our inability to democratically elect Congressmen.
 
In the last national election, the Republic candidate received 61% of the vote compared to 38% for the Democrat.

Prior to the redistricting the Democratic party held 17 districts or 53% of the districts which, if compared to the results of the election, shows that the Democratic party where over represented by 15%. After the redistricting, and during that same elections, the Republicans held 21 seats or 65%. Objectively, the redistricting in Texas served to greatly reduce the extent to which the state was gerrymandered. Indeed, the current district map could hardly have been drawn to produce a more fairly proportioned representation between the Democratic and Republican members of our Congressional delegation.

It is certainly true that the composition of the delegation changed dramatically as a result of the redistricting effort. However, this can not be characterized as "excessive" gerrymandering when the results are most pleasing to any who value a egalitarian and representative government where the character of our elected officials should closely reflect the character of the body politic. What was accomplished was not an act of "excessive" gerrymandering, it was an act of justice where the effects of past gerrymandering where unwound to the benefit of the good people of the State of Texas.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
Because political parties have no Constitutional standing, other than their right to exist, and they only get that because the people are free to form them. There is no reason, under the Constitution, to ensure that political parties are proportionally represented in a State's congressional delegation. Likewise, there is no Constitutional requirement that redistricting be done only in conjunction with the required census, that's just the way we've always done it. So the Court's decision seems to be pretty right, at least from where I sit. And I think Tom Delay is a grade-A scumbag.

Republicans may live to regret this... That blade can cut both ways.

--Shannon
 
Richard,
That's some funny math you've thrown together there. Who says that congressional votes should mirror presidential votes? Who says congressional makeup as a percentage should mirror either of the two above figures?

No matter how you try to justify it, this was a blatant politically motivated gerrymandering. We the people are supposed to be choosing them, our representatives. Not the other way around.

Big Ruger,
I re-read through the entire thread. I don't see anybody implying that this behavior "is unsat only when done by Republicans". In fact, it's contradicted by the very first post.
Let me make myself very clear: This behavior is unsat when done by either party.
 
GoSlash27,

How are we to determine the extent of gerrymandering? If you can provide a more objective way of quantifying the extent to which gerrymandering has taken place, then I would be most pleased to substitute your methodology for mine own. In any event, anyone with a calculator can verify that there is nothing funny about my math.

This most recent redistricting was perhaps the most contentious in Texas history so no responsible person would claim that party politics was not involved. Much of the Democratic contingent actually fled the state in an effort to prevent a quorum, an act I found particularly despicable and cowardly although I readily admit that some partisan Democrats found that same behavior to be heroic.

I would characterize the redistricting as a blatantly politically motivated attempt to correct for past gerrymandering and an equally blatantly politically motivated event by Democrats to maintain a district map that was far more gerrymandered then the one that is currently in place.

It is perfectly clear to me that you will not be glad for my view of the events, but we can all note that my view of the events closely corresponds to the only objective standard for determining the extent of gerrymandering that has been offered at this time. I would be most pleased to conform my views to your own if you can provide a clear standard that is more rational then mine own. At a minimum, such a standard would provide a means of quantifying how gerrymandered the State of Texas was both before and after the current redistricting plan was instantiated.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
I've got a far more objective way to quantify gerrymandering:
Gerrymandering_Comparison.png


800px-TravisCountyDistricts.png


All you have to do is look at a map.

If you want a problem you can crack with a calculator, all you have to do is look at the number of registered Democrats and Republicans in Texas.
Next, look at the distribution of registered Democrats and Republicans within each district, labeling disproportionately represented districts as 'red' and 'blue'.
Compare the first percentage with the percentages of 'red' and 'blue' districts in Texas.
If they aren't as close as possible, Texas has been gerrymandered.

It is perfectly clear to me that you will not be glad for my view of the events..
Click to expand...
I'm glad for any view that's expressed in an open honest fashion. :)
Very clearly, a comparison to registered voters is more appropriate than a comparison to presidential election results.

My point is this: Regardless of which side of the aisle does it or what their motivations are, when the representatives are deciding which voters are in which district it undermines democracy.
Voting districts are not something that should be under their purview.
 
My numbers and evaluation:

"Republican Primary voters rose from 114k to over a million (1.02), while Democratic Primary voters dropped from 2.2 million to below a million (.92)."

Ctsy. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/election2000/states/texas/background.html

Republican primary voters = 1.02/(1.02+.92) = 52% of the population.

"Prior to the redistricting the Democratic party held 17 districts or 53% of the districts"
47/52= 9.6% gerrymandered Democrat.

" After the redistricting, and during that same elections, the Republicans held 21 seats or 65%."

65/52 = 25% gerrymandered Republican.

So while I agree that the Democrat gerrymander was corrected, in a truly equitable distribution the Republicans would hold 17 seats, not 21.
 
Texas is counter balanced by California, where the Democrats have gerrymandered the state into a permanent Democrat majority. All seats are protected, as to party, and your only choice is usually two opponents from the SAME party. The political differences are minor, and it turns into a popularity or name recognition vote.

And yes, the Republican party is a permanent, protected, minority party in this state. They gave up all chance of challenging the Dems in return for their share of protected seats.

And yes, when given the chance, California voters turned down redistricting in the last election, due in a large part to a massive Democrat misinformation campaign that led this mass of uninformed and apathetic voters right down the garden path.

And yes, you get the government you deserve. Welcome to the Peoples Republic Of California.

Wonder if I can get Voice of America here?

P.S.- Arnold is a figurehead with no real power. I'm not sure he is a real Republican anyway.
 
Abndoc,
Texas and California do indeed counterbalance each other, but that doesn't make it right in either case.
Both states have disenfranchised their own voters by taking away the value of their votes.

Regardless of which state does it it's wrong. Regardless of which party does it it's wrong.
 
Meek & Mild,
Perhaps I need to play the "argument" picture game.
For the thousandth time, gerrymandering is *UNACCEPTABLE* regardless of who's doing it.
 
GoSlash25,

Clearly, looking at shapes is a subjective and not an objective standard for determining gerrymandering. Even if we where to look at the shapes of districts, a general survey of all districts should be conducted instead of just selecting a single anecdotal district that might best validate a biased viewpoint. We can note that the district you selected to illustrate your position is in fact the only district the Supreme Court had any problems accepting. We can also note that the shape of many districts are significantly distorted in an effort to insure that minority voting rights are protected by intentionally creating districts where the boundaries are drawn based on racial demographic data instead of simply creating districts that contain geographically contiguous communities. This is done in accordance with federal law and automatically reviewed, in the case of a number of Southern states, by federal courts.

As far as numbers go, why would you look to voting records from primaries in preference to those of the general election when the former represents only a small fraction of the sample provided by the latter? Why not simply look at the votes that actually elected the congressmen instead of looking to primaries where voter turn out is much less substantial? Furthermore, In the 2004 Republican primary there where cast 687,615 votes and in the 2004 Democratic primary there where cast 839,231 votes so at first glance the unintelligent might be inclined to assume that there are more Democrats in Texas then Republicans but one must remember that the Republican nomination was essential uncontested while a number of prominent Democrats where striving to obtain the nomination of Democratic party.

Thanks for playing and I hope you will do better next time. Perhaps, instead of trying to prove your point, you might try simply looking for the truth.

Qualitatively, Texas is clearly a Republic State with every state wide office being held by a Republican and with Republicans holding majorities in both houses of the state legislature. It is not at all surprising that the majority of our Congressional delegation should also be Republican when a significant majority of the people of Texas are Republican.

Respectfully,
Richard
 
As far as numbers go, why would you look to voting records from primaries in preference to those of the general election when the former represents only a small fraction of the sample provided by the latter?
Click to expand...
I'm not looking at voting records for either. I'm looking at party affiliation. As you correctly point out, voting records can be misleading. Especially when, you know....you're citing 'supporting' data from races completely irrelavant to Congress. Why compare it to the popular vote for president specifically? Why not the vote for Senate? Sheriff? Dogcatcher?
It's a weak attempt to mislead through bad math.

Again, I'm not looking at 'voting records', I'm looking at registered party affiliation. "A"% of registered voters in Texas are Democrat. "B"% are Republican. I apologize for not using the complete statewide numbers, but Texas either does not track them or doesn't make them publicly available.
Each district should have a sample population that reflects the statewide balance. When it has been intentionally unbalanced for political gain, that is the very definition of gerrymandering.

How fair would it be to you, if you lived in a Dem 'throwaway' district with a completely worthless congresscritter you can't get rid of? Heck, maybe you do. You may as well not even bother voting because the game has been *rigged*. Likewise the Dems.
Each district in Texas has been intentionally unbalanced so that the individual votes count for nothing. Every voter in Texas may as well just stay home because their votes are worthless. You call *that* Democracy?
Thank you for playing. Come back when you can better explain yourself.
-Cheers :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top