Here's one thing we could do about redistricting

[CC27]

Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Tue Dec-28-10 11:57 PM
Original message
Here's one thing we could do about redistricting
   
Edited on Wed Dec-29-10 12:16 AM by Ken Burch
We could start initiative campaigns to take redistricting away from the legislature and set up elected redistrictring boards instead.

This would make it much more difficult for the state 'pugs, if those initiatives were passed, to gerrymander us into oblivion in Congress and the state legislative seats.

Worth a try, isn't it?

It would give people something to work for and a reason to feel politics still mattered, both of which could only boost turnout in 2012.

Like you DUmmies will get off your ass for anything other then pot and your midnight runs to 7-11 for twinkies and condoms.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x85819

[Ralph Wiggum]

We could start initiative campaigns to take redistricting away from the legislature and set up elected redistrictring boards instead.

Why don't you try some of the shit that FDR did like expanding the Supreme Court too.  Idiots.

[Carl]

Why don't you try some of the shit that FDR did like expanding the Supreme Court too.  Idiots.

You know them too well Ralph...that is exactly what he proposes.

Ken Burch  (1000+ posts)        Wed Dec-29-10 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. The arbitrary 435 seat limit on the size of the U.S. House is also criminal
 That limit was set in 1913, when our population was a third of what it is now.

The size limit hurts workers, the poor, and the powerless.

Democrats have a moral duty to overturn it and to make the House, once again, a chamber that gives us representation based on population.

No state whose population grows should ever LOSE Congressional seats.
 

Ken Burch  (1000+ posts)        Wed Dec-29-10 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. It would mean more representation for the states where we can actually elect people.
 It would mean more seats in New York, Illinois, Ohio...the places where Democrats AREN'T eternally doomed(as we are in Texas, Florida and the rest of that region).We should want there to be as much representation in Congress for the states that Bruce Springsteen sings about rather than more in the states where Toby Keith tops the charts.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Ken Burch  (1000+ posts)        Wed Dec-29-10 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. The arbitrary 435 seat limit on the size of the U.S. House is also criminal

Criminal? 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

We could start initiative campaigns to take redistricting away from the legislature and set up elected redistrictring boards instead.

The legislature is the elected redistricting board.

Of course if the American electorate repeated the results for his beloved redistricting boards he would just find another gripe.

Still, I wonder how he intends to pass an entire Constitutional amendment before the redistricting occurs.

[Karin]

It's the same thing as sitting there typing "My solution?  Get rid of capitalism." 

When my sisters and I were tiny little girls, we would watch "Bewitched" and wish we were Samantha.  Anything you wanted with a twitch of the nose.  We eventually grew up. 

[USA4ME]

Ken Burch

Here's one thing we could do about redistricting
  
We could start initiative campaigns to take redistricting away from the legislature and set up elected redistrictring boards instead.

Funny, but I don't remember seeing this being suggested by this primitive after the 2008 election.  If he had done it then, at least it would have sounded less partisan.  I wonder what changed?

.

[jukin]

What will happen is numerous joints will be smoked, screens will be spittle filled, and cheetos bags shall be litter their parent's basement floor.

[Rebel]

This is what you get when you let the Dems play with the redistricting machine:

[true_blood]

Criminal? 

HA HA!

[Alpha Mare]

"It's a sorid business, this divving us up by race."   Chief Justice John Roberts


LULAC vs. Perry: 2006 case challenging Texas' redistricting.

SCOTUS ruled that only one new district violated the Voting Rights Act. Dist.23 (61% Hispanic), held by Henry Bonilla (Hispanic Republican).
Ruling stated that while it was redrawn to be a 'majority minority', it wasn't Hispanic enough. 
Chief Justice Roberts asked LULAC's attorney: "What number of minority voters is just right to make a district qualify as "Hispanic-opportunity", rather than one masquerading as such?"     He got no answer.

(Justices Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas dissented)

[JohnnyReb]

What with computers, satellites and such why can't they just draw horizontal lines and vertical lines on a state map and adjust them up, down and sideways until the approximate correct number of voters are in each box?

Because more boxes would be red..........

[thundley4]

What with computers, satellites and such why can't they just draw horizontal lines and vertical lines on a state map and adjust them up, down and sideways until the approximate correct number of voters are in each box?

Because more boxes would be red..........

Cities would be limited as to how much their minority votes counted by doing that. 

[Rebel]

Cities would be limited as to how much their minority votes counted by doing that. 

Lord forbid we all be considered equal.