Texas
 

The pope threatend to excommunicate Galileo for his theory that the earth revolved around the sun, when it was obvious to all since Aristotle that everything revolved around the earth.

Texas
 

??????????. Incumbants tend to get reelected. The only time you have turnover is when you have an open seat. But in a Gerrymandered district that seat will never change parties. In nongerrymandered seats the seats do change parties. So yes redistricting does not increase the turnover but it does increase the change between partys. In addition, in a nongerrymandered seat, since each party has a chance, the less extremist of the two candidates wins. This encourages both parties to run the less extreme candidate, thereby making congress less partisan.

Other forces may effect competitiveness but that doesn't mean you shouldn't address the forces that you can. That is like saying that a guy who has AIDs shouldn't be treated for the diseases that his deficient immunity system lets in. You can't get rid of all the disease so why get rid of any? You fight the fights that you can.

Texas
 

No this is not relevent because neither side can go to sit at the edge of the Solar System and see for themselves which celestial body revolves around the other. In this case I have. Telling me that judge redistricting does not make seats more competive, and does not produce candidates that are less extreme, is like telling an Astronaut that has landing on the moon that the earth revolves around the moon.

You can show him all the studys in the world and it won't make any difference.

Texas
 

I agree with your first sentence (with words). But the rest does not follow. Incumbents win. Look at the vote % in the year of first election, and all subsequent elections. Typically it's something like 55%, 75%, 90%, 90%, 90% and so on. Close the first year, not afterwards. That's an incumbency advantage, not a gerrymander advantage. The point of the paper, and other than your own casual empiricism you have not responded to, is that gerrymandering doesn't necessarily alter the course of what would have happened anyway, at least with any reasonable alternative district. Maybe it alters on the margin a couple of districts, but you make it sound like it's responsible for all ills. Sorry, but Orange County and the Central Valley are going to elect rightwingers no matter how you district.

So, what you're really saying is that we should constantly redistrict. That's not crazy, and would address the problem of the incumbent advantage. The idea being, eliminate incumbency. Candidates always have to win some new votes. But that has little to do with how one redistricts, so long as there is change--what matters is that you do it at all.

Now, because I'm at it, I'll also take issue with your premise, which is that Congress should be less partisan. That works assuming everyone is a moderate. But why shouldn't the right-wing Rs and the left-wing Ds also have some representation. If you look at countries with multi-party gov'ts, the seats don't all go to the centrists. Many of them do, but not all of them. Obviously that's partly a product of the electoral systems used. But, there's some merit there too--why should the district including Berkeley, assuming it consists of mostly like-minded liberals, not be able to sent a hard-core liberal to Congress? Same with Wyoming--why not a hard-core rightwinger? It's very possible that the nation's preferences are such that Congress should be more partisan. The median voter theory doesn't apply nationwide when there are individual elections.

Texas
 

The pope, who lived on earth, could see that everything revolved around it. He was presented with evidence that perhaps he was mistaken. He said, no such evidence is heretical because I have seen with my own eyes that the sun revolves around the earth.

Texas
 

You'all might have covered this in my absence, but, I thought the sin of gerrymandering was getting more representation from one party or side than reflects the votes of the people. Do we really care if it results in party hacks who won't leave, as long as the representation ends up proportional to what the people want? It's not like, in a world where the parties winnow the choices down from 2000 to 2, that we would be missing our perfect candidate choice anyway. We're still mostly voting for the parties, because those parties' internal structures have done the preselection for us.

California Death Penalty
 

Not to defend the sentiment to which you were responding, but, how about "the end of that particular evil"?

Texas
 

Before I am forced to read 37 pages from a Holocaust denier. How do the writers classify whether or not a congressman is an extremist? How do they determine which wing of the party they reside in. My guess is that they don't. And if they don't how do they determine whether gerrymandered distrcts produce more partisan congressmen?

Texas
 

So, you're for term limits? Protecting us from ourselves?

Texas
 

This is what I wrote earlier:

The Governator just tried to pass a proposition in California whereby the drawing of the district lines would be taken away from the legislature and given to a panel of retired judges. A system that is used in a few states. Iowa has such a system and three of its five congressional seats were competitive last last election. California, out of 52 seats, did not have any that were competitive. In fact, of its forty state senate seats, eighty assembly seats, and fifty congressional seats, not one changed party hands in the last election.

The Unions spent twenty five million dollars to defeat the Governators proposition. That is reason 116 that I hate Unions.

When you have a large swath of independent voters (38 percent in California) and the election are decided in the primary they do not get any say. In a general election these independend swing voters will not go for extremeists, so when elections are actually competitive in the general election it has a strong moderating influence. That is why the centrists from both parties all come from the swing districts.

In addition, in the primary, especially a non=presidential congressional primary turnout is unbelieveably low (twenty percent). The lower the turnout the less likely moderate are to vote. Extremists always show up to vote, it is the moderating influences that turn out only in big elections.

In addition, in the primary a plurality of the votes can win (it works the same in the general election, but in reality there is just two competitive parties so there are only two candidates). With an open seat in a Republican primary you can get as many as ten candidates. The candidate with the most votes wins, no matter how little votes they get. In districts in California, in the Republican primary (with ten candiates and a twenty percent turnout) you get candidates winning with only fifteen thousand votes. The general election is a non event so you get a person with fifteen thousand votes representing 500,000 people.

Anybody who has spent fifteen minutes in retail politics knows that gerrymandering polarizes districts. Not because it is the conventional wisdom but because it is so painfully obvious a blind brain damaged orangutan could see it.

Texas
 

I'm getting a clearer picture of why the Bush people aren't calling you back.

;)

(P.S. Good thing national presidential politics aren't gerrymandered, then. We might have ended up polarized.)

Texas
 

Yes I am for term limits. Yes because they protect us from ourselves. Just like the Bill of rights protects us from "ourselves" by limiting the power of the majority. Just like the constitution protects us from ourselves by limiting the presidential term to four years so we can't democratically elect a president for life (note: I am not talking about term limits her I am talking about the lenght of a term).

Texas
 

The Bush administration behind the scenes pushed hard for the defeat of the Governators redistricting proposition. In an open letter I stated that Bush was sacrificing the future of California for narrow, self serving, short term, political interests. I also added that I didn't think Republicans in California needed to show any loyalty to the administration since they have shown such contempt for our future and well being.

I think that was the final nail in my coffin. I am expecting the department of Homeland Security any day at my door.

However, I am going to get my revenge by knocking Delay out in the primary.

Ain't politics fun.

Texas
 

BTW, I read this today and thought of you: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/3520667.html

Texas
 

2. I don't trust us.

Texas
 

You are confusing apples and oranges. Incumbancy is about incumbancy, and the Gerrymander is about party control. They are two different subjects. However, it is easier to take out an incumbent in a general election than in a primary. I have seen it a few times in teh General. I know of very few in the primary.


The Gerrymander makes it almost impossible for the party that doesn't control the legislature to get a majority in the congressional delegation. No matter which way the partisan winds are blowing. In addition, the Gerrymander makes all the seats safe for one party, allowing extremists to take those seats. Your study does nothing to refute those assertions and that is what I have been saying the whole time.


I never said we should constantly redistrict. Where the hell did that come from. Every ten years there is a new census and then new lines are drawn. I am just saying those lines should be drawn by retired judges instead of the legislature. About seven states do it that way. It allows for more competitive seats between the partys

Constantly redrawing would leave us with the same problem. The party in power would draw the lines for the next election which is the problem we have now.

The problem is that no seats go to centrists. There are some seats, as you said that can never be gerrymandered to change. Otherwise the party in power would control all the seats. So naturally the extremists should come from extreme areas. But with a Gerrymander the lines are drawn as such that the moderates are outgunned by the extremists in every district.

Texas
 

That guy is a joke. Pat Baig is the one that is gong to take out Delay.

Texas
 

The known presence of water balloon-toting local hooligans may be enough to keep them away.

Texas
 

For those that are interested, I found her at www.patbaig.com.

Interesting. Where'd you find her? Is she the consensus candidate to take out DeLay?

Texas
 

Let me give you some cold hard facts. In 1990 in California the judges drew the lines, and the congressional delegation from California was even (26-26). In 2000 the lines were redrawn by the Democrats and five Republicans lost their seats. Before the election there were five pro-choice Republican congressmen. After the lines were redrawn four of the five Republicans that lost their seats were Pro-Choice - Bilbray, Kuykendahl, Campbell, and one other guy whose name I forgot. The fifth guy, Rogan, was pretty conservative, but was liked by most moderates. None of the extremists lost their seats. Four of the five guys were replaced by liberal Democrats (none are members of the DLC). One was a moderate: Jane Harman - who is part of the DLC.

So in California the net loss was four moderate Republicans and the liberal democrats gained four seats seat. Conservative Republicans lost one seat and the moderate Dems gained one seat.

From 1990 to 2000 in every election some open seats changed party hands. When combining Congress, Assembly, and State Sentate the average was about fifteen every year. Since the 2002 changeover not a single seat has changed party hands. In 2004 of the one hundred and fifty some odd seats not a single seat changed party hands. Because the proposition was defeated this election will be no different.

We have had one special congressional elections in California recently and will have another shortley. The Republican Cox left to join the SEC, and his seat was replaced by a Republican and Cunningham is leaving because he is going to jail, he will be replaced by a Republican because no Dem has a chance. Before the Gerrymander both these seats might have been taken by Democrats.

As I said, anyone with any political experience knows that the Gerrymander locks in seats for the parties and increasess extremism among the congressional delegation.

Texas
 

I thought it was pretty much determined that those were unAmerican. I can't recall why, though.

Texas
 

She paid for some ads in the local newspaper critisizing Delay. That is how we found her. She has deep pockets. Never a bad thing. One of the employees of my politial organization just took a leave of absence to go run her campaign. We are going to put the full weight of the Silicon Valley behind her.

Delay should have stayed out of California politics.

Texas
 

They have already been put on high alert.

Texas
 

I hate to break this to you, Spanky, but I'd vote for Pat. Ergo, she will lose.

Texas
 

I always thought that was a good idea. Does Lani agree with me? Why does that make me unamerican?

I am also for penalizing people if they don't vote. From economic perspective there is no reason to vote. The costs (all the time taken from your day and reading about the issues) is not covered by the return (the chance that your vote might actually mean something).

The only people that have not figured this out are the extremists and losers like me.

So we have to make it in people's economic interest to vote. Like they do in Australia. You don't vote you get a big fine.

That way, in order to win, politicians would have to turn to middle again instead of the base (like Bush was able to do in 2004).

Texas
 

Oh ye of little faith. If Delay drops out of the race she will be the only one left standing. And if she doesn't, you haven't seen the hit pieces we are putting together (i.e. "there is no more fat left to cut out of the budget").

Texas
 

I mean this in all sincerity: good luck. She seems like not just a good alternative to Delay, but a genuinely decent person who would be an asset to the the country in public office.

Bay Area Party Tour
 

I am taking her around the Bay Area from the 26th to the 28th of December for fundraisers. If anyone is interested in showing up let me know.

Texas
 

Isn't RT in that district? Why don't you go live with RT for the month of January and February and help us with the ground game.

Texas
 

Ditto. I am tickled at the thought of DeLay getting crushed, and from the little that I've read, Pat seems like a normal person.



Plus, if Baig wins, you may even get The Fist as a prize (Hi, RT!)

Bay Area Party Tour
 

Unless you mean Galveston, I'd keep that on the down low.

Texas
 

I just might do that. Although, no, RT isn't in District 22 and I'm not sure how well my hippy-ass will go over in Ft. Bend county.

Bay Area Party Tour
 

1) All donations are public, as are fundraisers. Kind of hard to keep it on the QT and the DL

2) You don't think Delay does fundraisers all over the country?

Bay Area Party Tour
 

Yeah, true on both counts. Perhaps, maybe, though one should do some fundraisers elsewhere as well to dillute the Bay Area part. The fact he fundraises nationwide isn't going to stop him from talking about the San Francisco (which will be read as "gay") money behind her.

Bay Area Party Tour
 

Even thought she wont be in SF only the Silicon Valley, the pig may try and use it against us. But the money raised will outweigh the negatives. I think other people will do stuff other places, but as for me, I ain't much use outside the Golden State.

Someone will have to pick up that ball.

No matter what happens it will be lot of fun. Delay (or at least I assume it is him) has already sent PIs looking into my background. Isn't the first time and won't be the last time.

Bay Area Party Tour
 

Some guys came around my place asking about you. They claimed to be old freinds, and joked about how you always got in trouble- wanted to know if I knew any new stories. I told them about how you almost got arrested for illegal deer feeding. Honest, I didn't know it was people out to hurt you!

Now I feel the fool:( :(

Texas
 

My recollection is that the multi-member districts was not what got her in trouble (those are used in Japan, although I suppose that's unamerican). It was the next step, which was to have Congress package votes on disparate issues, giving everyone, say, five votes for a total of five bills, and any bill that got 218 votes passed. That would, in theory, allow a 1/10 minority to get a bill passed, assuming it was packaged with othr bills, because 44 members, with five votes all for the same bill, could get it done. That is what was unamerican. Well, that and her extreme liberalism. It's almost as big a sin as having a nanny for whom you don't pay taxes.

Texas
 

post hoc ergo proper hoc

They could have lost their seats because the state moved left.

whatever. read the paper. skim it. whatever. if you're unpersuaded, fine.

fwiw, they don't measure partisanship, they measure competitiveness of elections, which they use percentage of vote to measure. Presumably uncompetitive elections lead to greater partisanship because it allows the person to move to the extremes while still having room to spare.

Texas
 

No. That is ridiculous. The count is 26-26 for five elections. There is a Gerrymander and the count in the next election changes to 31-21. Then in the following election there is no change. If the state had been moving left the change would have been gradual - not all at once.

And we don't even have to look at the results. We don't have to deduce the cause by looking at the results. The Democrats took the Republican voters in these districts and put them in districts that were already safe Republican. Then they took Democratic seats from those already safe Republican seats and put them in the competitive seats. Once a Republican seat is 50% Republican it is a safe seat. No way a democrat can win. So every Republican added to that seat changes nothing but every Democrat taken out and put in a competitive seat makes it lean more Democrat. So twenty Republican seats that were already safe Republican districts had their percentages of Republicans increased from fifty or sixty to seventy or eighty percent. All the Dems taken away turned the swing seats from thirty percent Democrat to sixty percent democrat changin them to the Dem column.

Which points out another stupid thing about that study. If you are looking at pure turnover, there is no time when you get more incumbants losing or when you get more turnover then right after a Gerrymander.

In Texas, it is my understanding the count was also equal and then after the Gerrymander the Republicans got a five seat advantage.

There is a direct relationship and it is painfully obvious.

Texas
 

I haven't been around for the last 20 hours of discussion on this one, but let me point out another flaw in the study: it is a study of all the seats, where overall stability masks small changes that have big results.

Shifts of a percent or two do not excite the authors of that report; however, a shift of a couple of percent tipped control of the house and so is vitally important. That couple of percent was obtained fairly clearly by line-drawing, some of which was justified and some of which, from what RT says, was pure hardball political payback.

There has been a strong notion that constitutionally political decisions should be left to the political entities, and are best kept there. Thus, the House hears issues regarding whether or not someone should be seated. Thus, the Supreme Court defers in election issues to the state authorities whenever possible.

The question that I think is raised is, should we follow this approach with respect to redistricting or are the balance of powers better served by taking this power out of the hands of the most political branch? As it was, the decision was taken out of the hands of the federal political branch and put at the state level so we can't have a national gerrymander, but should we go a step further?

And the reason has nothing to do with incumbents or competitiveness of single districts, but rather with the ability to endless perpetuate control by one party.