Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Texas Democrats Run Again

Texas Democrats Redistricting avoidance 2003

  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#21 Anna

Anna

    Island Native

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 01:10 AM

And they've decided to seek asylum in Albuquerque, my home town. Could you Texans please come fetch your legislators? Politics in New Mexico is third world at best. The last thing I want is the Democrats in New Mexico to get any more ideas. Or give the minority Republicans any clue about how to throw a sh** fit.

:lol:
Anna
Seldom do we regret words we do not speak.

--------------

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

#22 Anna

Anna

    Island Native

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 02:18 AM

Okay, now I'm PO'd at my own Governor! First, Governor Bill Richardson (former DOE Cabinet Secretary under President Clinton) and the Lt. Governor welcomed the Texas Dems with open arms.

http://kobtv.com/ind...d=3229&cat=HOME

Second, I haven't found this online yet, the local radio station reported that Governor Richardson ordered the state police to the hotel to protect the Texas legislators. 'Scuse me?? New Mexico tax dollars to protect run away Texas legislators?? I'm sure there's a wild bunch of New Mexicans just itching to get at those pesky Texans! NOT! (Mostly we just want them to spend money and go home and don't bother us any more.)

That was the part that pushed me over the edge!

GRRRRRR.

Now to find the phone number to the Gov's office...

Anna
Seldom do we regret words we do not speak.

--------------

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

#23 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 02:26 AM

My take: yes, the Democrats are acting childishly.  However, the Republicans are gerrymandering, which is worse, so I definitely support the Democrats on this one (just as I'd support the Republicans were the roles reversed).

#24 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 05:37 AM

prolog, on Jul 29 2003, 08:16 AM, said:

My take: yes, the Democrats are acting childishly.  However, the Republicans are gerrymandering, which is worse, so I definitely support the Democrats on this one (just as I'd support the Republicans were the roles reversed).
Bingo.

Quote

Definition:   [n]  an act of gerrymandering (dividing a voting area so as to give your own party an unfair advantage)
[v]  divide unfairly and to one's advantage; of voting districts

  See Also:   cheat, cheating, divide, part, separate

Please note the "unfair advantage" part. And that's exactly why I believe that the state legislatures shouldn't have control over this process at all. Both sides do it and it's dead wrong.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#25 Shoshana

Shoshana
  • Islander
  • 4,033 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 05:44 AM

^ What Rhea said.

;)

And I don't think these are actually the same Democrats that went to Oklahoma.

The House Democrats went to Oklahoma.

These are the Senate Democrats. Guess they want to be different.

'shana (who could be confused!)

#26 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 01:27 PM

And the reasons to believe that the Republicans really ARE doing anything wrong are...

#27 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 03:32 PM

Delvo, on Jul 29 2003, 10:17 PM, said:

And the reasons to believe that the Republicans really ARE doing anything wrong are...
It's a fair question - the answer (or lack thereof) of which is provided in the link, where they have maps of the districts, and the population numbers.

What I don't know is how to put all the information together to tell the story.  Anyone want to take a stab at it?

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#28 UoR11

UoR11
  • Islander
  • 1,839 posts

Posted 30 July 2003 - 06:14 PM

Okay, without getting into the whole issue about if it's right or wrong to run like this, I'd have to say Rhea's formula suggestion would be best. Unfortunatly, it's impossible. It's one of the side results from chaos theory. Extremely simplifying things, wherever you start drawing districts will cause major shifts in some borders, you'd get badly gerrymandered districts, and there's no good way to average out a lot of starting points. /Excessive math mode
Yes, I am an economist. Yes, I do frequently sing "Can't Buy Me Love". No, I don't see any contradiction there.

#29 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 01:11 AM

UoR11, on Jul 30 2003, 03:04 AM, said:

Okay, without getting into the whole issue about if it's right or wrong to run like this, I'd have to say Rhea's formula suggestion would be best. Unfortunatly, it's impossible. It's one of the side results from chaos theory. Extremely simplifying things, wherever you start drawing districts will cause major shifts in some borders, you'd get badly gerrymandered districts, and there's no good way to average out a lot of starting points. /Excessive math mode
Can someone tell me what the current logic between districts actually is now?  I can only see two ways of doing districting:

1. Laying out a grid that puts the same number of people in each box - with a cap on how many people should make up a district.

2. Allowing people to name neighborhoods (the way they do now) and calling the neighborhoods where people FEEL like they belong together a district.


Somehow I get the idea that that's not what happens.

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#30 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 01:40 AM

QueenTiye, on Jul 30 2003, 07:01 AM, said:

Somehow I get the idea that that's not what happens.

QT
The last scheduled gerrymandering never happened because the two sides couldn't come to an agreement; a court intervened. As such, the legislature never properly did their last redistricting plan.

Anyway, the current scheme is based on the same thing: Gerrymandering. Rhea's proposed solution is impossible, because the population isn't evenly distributed. Then you have to decide how to stretch and change the boundaries to accomodate the people, and gerrymandering is born.

Re: If these are the same people who ran. I'm not sure. I'll check.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#31 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 01:51 AM

^^ Then I think that politicians should keep their grubby hands out of the matter and let people decide.  There are factors in place that help - historical boundaries, family relations, distance, etc... that form a community - and communities have a general sense of when they belong together.  THEY can say for themselves what district they belong in, because THEY belong in a district with each other.

Oh well - no one would make me a politician anyway... :)

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#32 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 01:53 AM

^

but QT, for the system to have any meaning, every representative has to represent equal number of people (this is in contrast to the senate, of course). If you let 'historical boundaries' and 'family relations' define that, there's no way it's going to turn out fairly. Small, elite communities would have the same number of representatives with far fewer people.

Gerrymandering is the worst way to decide districts. Aside from all the other ways.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#33 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 01:56 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 30 2003, 10:43 AM, said:

^

but QT, for the system to have any meaning, every representative has to represent equal number of people (this is in contrast to the senate, of course). If you let 'historical boundaries' and 'family relations' define that, there's no way it's going to turn out fairly. Small, elite communities would have the same number of representatives with far fewer people.

Gerrymandering is the worst way to decide districts. Aside from all the other ways.
Why is it in contrast to the senate?  Why can't it be just LIKE the senate? (Just asking...)

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#34 Anna

Anna

    Island Native

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 01:59 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Jul 30 2003, 08:43 AM, said:

Gerrymandering is the worst way to decide districts. Aside from all the other ways.
Oh, great. Rov is paraphrasing Will Rogers. Things must be really bad now! :angel:

Anna

(At least I hope that's Will Rogers! :D)
Seldom do we regret words we do not speak.

--------------

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

#35 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:01 AM

^
LOL RPITA.

I'm still searching for exactly how the Texas Senate works. I'll, erm, get back to you...

Edited by Javert Rovinski, 31 July 2003 - 02:10 AM.

St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#36 Anna

Anna

    Island Native

  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 1,148 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:07 AM

QueenTiye, on Jul 30 2003, 08:46 AM, said:

Why is it in contrast to the senate?  Why can't it be just LIKE the senate? (Just asking...)

[Edit after reading Rov's edit. I'm thinking Federal, too. And I just attended a meeting with our state senate representative the other day! Doh! More coffee, less internet!]

If states did away with the representation aspect of the state house and senate, citizens would have no direct representation for their particular problems/needs.

Take New Mexico for example. The largest population area is the Albuquerque/Santa Fe corridor. If all the politicians pandered to that corridor, they could get elected every time. Meanwhile, the citizens in Tierra Amarilla would have no one to represent them in their extremely rural needs. And no one would really care, because Tierra Amarilla could not make a dent in an election.

And this is my problem with doing away with the electoral college and going to popular elections. All canidates would have to do is visit big cities. There would be no reason for a Presidential candidate to EVER visit New Mexico. Our 1.5 million state population just isn't worth their time.

Just my thoughts.

Anna

Edited by RPITA, 31 July 2003 - 02:13 AM.

Seldom do we regret words we do not speak.

--------------

Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

#37 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:17 AM

This is the current system, heavily gerrymandered:

http://gis1.tlc.stat...02districts.htm

<There's maps and stuff>

Anyway, the Texas senate *does* base itself on population; each senator just represents a higher number of people. Twice the gerrymandering. No waiting.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#38 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:20 AM

SO... I ask again  - why can't ONE of the systems be based on people's own sense of belonging together?

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght


#39 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:27 AM

QueenTiye, on Jul 30 2003, 08:10 AM, said:

SO... I ask again  - why can't ONE of the systems be based on people's own sense of belonging together?

QT
Because it can't really be measured or quantified in an objective way. Let's say you have a rancher who's alone for miles.... he considers himself a man who lives on his own, and has no sense of community. His only interaction with others is selling his product and going to the market once a week to get supplies.

Would this hypothetical rancher receive his own district?

Conversely, people in larger cities often tend to say "I consider myself part of Houston". Should a place so vast as Houston be on the same level as a small village out in the middle of nowhere? Who makes these determinations? Anybody interested enough to volunteer has to have a political agenda, and then you're right back where you started.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#40 QueenTiye

QueenTiye

    Behavior is not reproducible over multiple trials.

  • Islander
  • 24,302 posts

Posted 31 July 2003 - 02:27 AM

RPITA, on Jul 30 2003, 10:57 AM, said:

If states did away with the representation aspect of the state house and senate, citizens would have no direct representation for their particular problems/needs.
How do you mean?

The assumption is that people are best represented as a number.  But I disagree.  People who feel like they belong together tend to feel that way because they have lots of similarities between them.  Allowing people to group themselves empowers THEM to define themselves and how they are represented.  The actual argument against this is that a small niche group may have more of a voice than they actually deserve.  But I would solve this problem by apportioning a number of representative seats to each "district" depending on how many people there actually are in that district.  So in short - it would still be representative.  But the drawing of district lines by politicians means that the lines are drawn to suit politicians, NOT the constituents they serve.

Somebody explain to me why the way they do things now is better than what I propose.  I'm used to coming up with half-cocked ideas that need shooting down, but I haven't been successfully shot down yet... ;)

QT

Een Draght Mackt Maght




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Texas, Democrats, Redistricting avoidance, 2003

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users