Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
The Supreme Court is now going to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the Texas redistricting. Regardless of the outcome, it seems clear to me that this redistricting was a political hack job, engaged in for purely partisan purposes. It also strikes me that the manner in which redistricting occurs is inevitably highly partisan, and is a way in which parties have perpetuated themselves from the beginning and in a way I do not believe was envisioned or planned for by the founders.
Why not, in this age of technological progress, have all redistricting done by computer programs under the supervision of a clearly non-partisan commission (perhaps even one appointed by the judiciary instead of by politicians)?
|
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.
