Subscribe to EspressoPundit

About Greg

« Breaking News: Metro Phoenix is a Great Place | Main | No Credibility.... »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

While the article contends that the Repubs really didn't gain that much of an advantage by controlling the redistricting process in some of the states, the gerrymandering done by both parties has long made me sick to my stomach. It's such a blatant attempt to hold on to power.

In a perfect world, all districting would be done by a computer program that would be completely blind to race, party registration, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, hair color, preference of boxers or briefs, or your favorite "reality" show.

The only criteria should be roughly equal CITIZEN population.

While I'm working on a wish list of things that will never happen, the reps will have been required to live in the district 5 years before before election day. And no, I'm not talking about a summer home or a PO box you have some mail sent to. I'm talking about an honest to goodness primary residence at which you physically live more than 9 months out of the year.

Gilbert_Sundevil, you're singing my song. The first order of business in redistricting should be equal population; then compactness and contiguousness; then respect for communities of interest; then use of geographic features, including city, town and county boundaries; compliance with the US Constitution and the Voting Rights Act; then competitive districts where there is no significant detriment to the other criteria.
Wait! We have that as Arizona law and the "Independent" Redistricting Commission still got it wrong (and violated Arizona law in doing so).
Great idea, but we still have liars and thieves on the Commission and their supporters on the bench who are destroying our Republic.

With redistricting every ten years a five year residency is going to rule out half the candidates, including any incumbents. And if you truly want one-man-one-vote while you also equate geography with political representation you're contradicting yourself.

Do you have more in common with your next-door neighbor than with your co-worker? Do parents of public school kids have more in common with their retired neighbors or with the people on the far side of the district that have kids in the same school?

Is the premise of political representation based on geography flawed? Before you answer, be prepared to tear up the Constitution.

And if the premise of representation is population alone, then you can tear it up once again because of something called the U.S. Senate. Senate "districts" are never redrawn and completely ignore population counts.

U.S. Senate "districts" were never meant to be population driven. They are State driven: each State gets two regardless of population. That was the Great Compromise between States' rights and individual (representation by population) rights.
The checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution are not just between the three branches (Legislative, Executive, Judiciary), but also between the feds and the States. The people directly elect members of the House every two years (the House directly represents the people); State legislatures (who are directly elected by the people) appoint U.S. Senators every six years (the Senate represents the States); the people elect electors (via population-apportionment) who then elect the President every four years. It's called a Republic.
The worst thing this country ever did was pass the 17th Amendment which destroyed a major part of this delicate checks and balances system by changing the appointment of Senators by State legislatures to direct election by the people. It has given us the mess that is the U.S. Senate and it gives the States little if any representation at the federal level. Imagine if John McCain had to come back to the State and explain himself each time he joined hands with Lindsey Grahamnesty and a dozen or so Democrats to form another of their silly "bi-partisan" groups to pass another leftist idea. He wouldn't last long as a Senator. But give him (or any Senator) free reign for six years to run around the country, build up their personal reputations and their campaign war chests and you have created a group of elitist, self-serving oligarchs.

The comments to this entry are closed.