Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
I'm not sure why "computer assisted" redistricting that is taking a lot of heat for this. Legislatures came up with equally whacked gerrymanders by hand long ago, though I suppose the "computer generated" could lend some justification to what is otherwise outrageous..

I figured it was lazy journalistic shorthand that lent an air of evil to the situation as a replacement for "gerrymandering", which few readers actually understand and which the journalists don't want to take the time to explain. It's like calling the new systems out for being done in red ink instead of black - it has nothing to do with the problem, but it gives some jingoistic label for them to focus on when they want to talk about the bad system

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
MY hope is that -- after both parties have been horribly skewered (perhaps after the S.Ct weighs in) -- more states will go to the use of a "non-partisan" or "non-political" redistricting body to set Congressional districts with an eye towards keeping communities and/or local governmental entities together. I believe that Iowa and one other state have such bodies now.

I think it's going to be horribly complicated to arrive at some non-ideological process, especially because of the existing court mandates that require certain ideological drivers having to do with preserving political power amongst certain populations. The feeling is always going to be, you can be ideologically-driven as you map, so why can't I? The fact that the courts have mandated what many see as liberal aims and goals in the process is going to be used as an excuse to keep it partisan.

I like DS's idea, though - "draw me a map with the shortest possible borders containing equal numbers". Problem is, the existing court mandates don't allow for that, and in fact specifically outlaw it.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
I figured it was lazy journalistic shorthand that lent an air of evil to the situation as a replacement for "gerrymandering", which few readers actually understand and which the journalists don't want to take the time to explain. It's like calling the new systems out for being done in red ink instead of black - it has nothing to do with the problem, but it gives some jingoistic label for them to focus on when they want to talk about the bad system

Nope. The "computer-assisted" piece is important, because the computing power gives the legislators/staffers the ability to process and apply all the census and survey and voting data to the redistricting process on a block-by-block level.

Thus, they can gerrymander better, more precisely, and more effectively than was possible pre-1990 (and probably pre-1995).

S_A_M

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Watchtower
What say the Texans about this?

This particular Texan likes her state senator and can't stand her state representative and will show her displeasure over the whole thing in the voting booth next November. I didn't get redistricted, and I haven't read the case, so I can't say whether or not I agree with it. I do think, however, that this isn't over yet.

I'm really, really nervous about computers redrawing the lines, but I'm more nervous that out of state campaign money was such a big factor in this whole thing.

I'm also concerned about some of the comments about race that have been made in this whole thing.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Nope. The "computer-assisted" piece is important, because the computing power gives the legislators/staffers the ability to process and apply all the census and survey and voting data to the redistricting process on a block-by-block level.

Thus, they can gerrymander better, more precisely, and more effectively than was possible pre-1990 (and probably pre-1995).

S_A_M

Chickens and eggs. The evil impulse is still the instruction, whether it be to the cartographer or to the computer, to include X number of these people over here with Y number of those people over there so that this vote results. The computer is just the drawing tool. The computer makes it easier to know what your count is inside your lines as you doodle, but it's not the computerization that produces the gerrymandering - it's the operator. GIGO.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I'm also concerned about some of the comments about race that have been made in this whole thing.

Isn't the brunt of the fight the empowerment or disempowerment of various racial groups and communities?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
Isn't the brunt of the fight the empowerment or disempowerment of various racial groups and communities?

And it is always scary to hear what many people (especially but not exclusively the Rs) really think about race. Unless it is a driving issue, most of the racists have learned to keep their mouhts shut.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by bilmore
Isn't the brunt of the fight the empowerment or disempowerment of various racial groups and communities?

I thought that the brunt of the fight is the continued empowerment of the party in power. That racial groups become disempowered is, I suspect, the means to that end.

It does make me wonder, though, about the viability of this as a long-term political strategy. Wouldn't this make it difficult for GOPers to reach out effectively to minority groups when, at the same time, those groups will know that it's the GOP who've scattered the tribes to the four winds to dilute their voting power?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
I thought that the brunt of the fight is the continued empowerment of the party in power. That racial groups become disempowered is, I suspect, the means to that end.

It does make me wonder, though, about the viability of this as a long-term political strategy. Wouldn't this make it difficult for GOPers to reach out effectively to minority groups when, at the same time, those groups will know that it's the GOP who've scattered the tribes to the four winds to dilute their voting power?

There is one train of thought that holds, of course, that there is no valid reason for us to be grouping ourselves into interest groups based on racial lines other than as a rationale response to a system that seeks to perpetuate those lines for demogogic (sp?) partisan gain. I can see the rational basis for economic-class-based warfare, which I see as lacking in racial-based warfare. So, (and, yes, this is theory only), if the principle is that the rising tide (caused by "our side") lifts all colors of boats, breaking down the racial groupings of voters into class-based groupings works in the long run.

(Yes, I know this is far too utopian to be practical.)

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think the new one, while still horribly skewed, probably ends up with a closer-to-the-popular-vote result in terms of Dems/Repubs elected.

A benchmark that is itself partisan. If this is what we're striving for, a better way to go is proportional representation. It would be best to have districts that have something to do with the way people live.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
A benchmark that is itself partisan. If this is what we're striving for, a better way to go is proportional representation. It would be best to have districts that have something to do with the way people live.

Are you suggesting that a close matching of the wishes of voters to the outcome of an election is somehow less than desirable? I'm confused. If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying that disproportional representation, skewed to maintain someone's chosen values, is the better alternative.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
Isn't the brunt of the fight the empowerment or disempowerment of various racial groups and communities?

No, the brunt of the underlying fight is Democrats vs. Republicans. The state legislature has always been a fairly friendly place, as far as politics goes. Democrats and Repubilicans have always worked very closely together, and animosity and acromony across party lines was something for Washingon, not Texas. When Bush ran saying he was a uniter, not a divider, it was because he was used to the Texas legislature, which traditionally has worked fairly well together.

Until the redistricting fight. Everyone knows that the redistricting fight wasn't about equity or righting wrongs or because hey, we have some extra time and why don't we just go ahead and redistrict, since we have nothing better to do. The directive came straight from Washington, and Tom Delay muscled money from all over the country to support the effort. This whole thing was about the national level republicans thinking that they could get five more seats out of Texas if the maps were drawn in the right way. The Democrats (remember, we used to working together in Texas or at least having a say) were totally excluded from the whole discussion and ended up fleeing the state twice to voice their anger over their exclusion.

And when the Republicans finally got the pesky Democrats out of the way, they couldn't agree on what they wanted. There was a lot of push-back from local Republicans on how to redraw the maps, but the Washington folks pushed harder and ultimately the Washington maps were the ones that made it through. The best interests of Texas, personified by Charlie Stenholm, a Democrat out of west Texas who is a ranking member of the Agriculture Committee and tends to really look after the whole state, weren't necessarily taken into account by the computer map.

Anyhow, race is certainly the major issue in the courts, but the bigger issue is the winner takes all attitude that the political system in the state is now facing.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Anyhow, race is certainly the major issue in the courts, but the bigger issue is the winner takes all attitude that the political system in the state is now facing.

I haven't really read enough about this to know for sure (but when has that ever stopped me on the PB), but, is it not true that the existing map resulted in the election of a proportion of Democratic representatives well out of line with the proportion of individual votes cast for those representatives? Do you see that as a valid result of what's supposed to be a democratic process?

(Edited to add: and I think we're saying the same thing about Repub v. Dem - the empowerment or disempowerment of groups was the means to the partisan-power-grab end.)

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It does make me wonder, though, about the viability of this as a long-term political strategy. Wouldn't this make it difficult for GOPers to reach out effectively to minority groups when, at the same time, those groups will know that it's the GOP who've scattered the tribes to the four winds to dilute their voting power?

I'm pretty sure that one of the reasons this was done now is that the demographics in Texas are changing dramatically. I've been going to a series of small towns in central Texas all my life. In the last few years, the populations have shifted from German-Czech to Hispanic. Old hamburger stands have reopened as taquarias. The guys at WalMart also speak Spanish. The business names are beginning to have Lopez and Garcia and Sanchez on them. Texas is not going to be majority white for much longer, and if the GOP wants to keep a stronghold here, they're going to have to open up to these new populations, because the old voting base isn't as strong as it once was. California used to be fairly conservative until demographics changed.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by bilmore
I haven't really read enough about this to know for sure (but when has that ever stopped me on the PB), but, is it not true that the existing map resulted in the election of a proportion of Democratic representatives well out of line with the proportion of individual votes cast for those representatives? Do you see that as a valid result of what's supposed to be a democratic process?

(Edited to add: and I think we're saying the same thing about Repub v. Dem - the empowerment or disempowerment of groups was the means to the partisan-power-grab end.)

I think that everyone agrees that the map drawn in 1991 was a work of genius by the Democrats at the time. BUT, there was an opportunty to fix everything in 2001, and the legislature never got its act together so a court ended up drawing the census map. The Republicans have argued that their actions last year was an effort to take everything out of the court's hands and put it back in the legislature. I'm not entirely clear when Tom Delay was elected to the legislature.

And of course, if one argues that the proportion of Democratic reps should roughly approximate the proportion of people who voted for Democrats, then one might want to re-look at the 2000 presidential election and wonder if that was a democratic process.

Someone, I think it was the Houston Chronicle, suggested that a computer randomly draw maps without political input. Put in the geography and VRA requirements in and go with whatever the computer spits out. I think that everyone in the legislature would pass out if that happened.