|
Court Approves Texas Redistricting Plan
Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
Maybe I'm missing something, but you are either speaking of the shapes of the districts, taking no regard for the political gerrymandering aspects of all of this, or you are saying that, somehow, letting people's wishes to be represented by similar genotypes is more important than adhering to a system that counts the rancher's one vote as equally, but no more, important than the one vote of the pregnant Peruvian car saleswoman. The first is nonresponsive to the argument, the second is . . . just . . . weird.
|
It seems to me that the shorter the boundaries are, the more you will put neighbors in the same districts. This seems to me a good thing. It also should ensure that ranchers are in district with other ranchers, also a good thing. Is there some part of this that you don't agree with. I don't like gerrymandering, and would like to find a way to avoid it, as Iowa apparently has done. I don't think any of this is controversial -- I assume that most people who are not themselves politicians would agree in principle, but that it's tricky to figure out how to translate these sentiments into concrete steps.
I truly don't understand the second thing you think I might be saying.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
