Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Democrats: Make Redistricting More than a Post Script this Election
Every decade, the United States government takes on a massive, audience-participation math project. We attempt, as accurately and as expeditiously as possible, to count noses and houses. This constitutionally required activity is done to give us a handle on just how many people live here, the characteristics of those folks, and exactly where these people chose to hang their hats. So, come 2010, we will all be players in the 23rd decennial census. That's just two years away, and plans are already well underway for this massive undertaking -- yes, your government is planning ahead, even to the point of conducting a census dress rehearsal this year. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
Uncle Sam isn't just inviting us to the party; we are required, by law, to join in the census fun. And everyone of us should stand up and be counted, because the numbers it generates will impact American politics not only for the following decade, but potentially generations to come. This head count has three main purposes:
- Apportionment: determining the number of seats each state has in the House of Representatives
- Redistricting: determining voting district boundaries within states
- Funding: determining the allocation of government services
But this isn't just about Congress, folks. Sure, the redistricting battle set to take place in 2011 will redraw House districts all over the country. And, like so many things in politics, there will be winners and losers. States that have lost population since 2000 will lose House seats, and this will be painful for those states in a myriad of ways. But also remember that the loss of House seats will result in a loss of electoral college votes for that state, as well. Yes, redistricting affects presidential politics, too, because electoral college votes for each state are determined by the number of House seats that state can claim, plus their two Senate seats. Imagine how this can play out in 2012, as red states gain electoral votes and blue states lose them.
Read the full the blog at:
http://thezaftigredhead.blogspot.com/











Comments (5)
Boy would I love to be redrawn "out" of a gerrymandered district with a terrible repub rep! That, and how I would love to see that man defeated this fall!
Let's hear it for nice, geometric-looking districts.
♪♪♪
February 27, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to say the same thing, and then I was going to ask if that's naive. Am I missing a reason that's a bad idea? Seems like a good idea to me. Make the shapes as regular as possible with each one encompassing approximately the same number of people.. I don't see the problem.
February 28, 2008 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Furion
"Idealistic" is perhaps the better word.
Euclidean geometry has its limitations. Any competent mathematician could draw reasonably compact districts that would favor one party or, more importantly, one ideological bent over another.
Then imagine that half the states were run by Republicans and half by Democrats. If the Republicans play dirty and the Democrats don't... Well even George Bush could handle that math without help from Karl Rove.
OK so we play fair and they don't but there is something even more crucial.
That is getting a reasonably accurate count.
In the last redistricting, estimates of the uncounted were ruled out. That number is not immaterial. What that meant is that the DLC's and Republican's middle class got to put an extra weight on the scale while the working class majority got less than their share of representation.
Might want to worry some about which Democrats do the math.
Best, Terry
February 28, 2008 6:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly... those elected secretary of state at the state level often hold the key, and Dems need to make concerted efforts to take those seats this year and in 2010, because of the redistricting activities coming our way.
Of course, even if you get a state-based plan passed, it might not stop Republicans from coming back and trying to make it even more partisan -- remember what Tom DeLay did in Texas a few years back? The Dems lost five House seats in that redistricting purge, including Martin Frost and Charlie Stenholm.
February 27, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
2010 makes our downticket races this year all the more important. We need to go into them with as many incumbents as possible, in order to increase Democratic advantages in this very important issue.
Undoing the damage Tom DeLay did in Texas is one very visible aspect of this. Protecting incumbents in states that may lose a Rep is another. And the composition of legislatures at the state level also determines a lot of things that directly affect people's lives. Schools, property taxes, state taxes, roads, and those inane amendments that Republicans continually try to put on the ballots as voter motivators, just to name a few.
And I hate to bring this into it, but if Clinton gets the nomination, she will cost us downticket on her way to at best, a narrow WH victory. We can't afford that. Obama has been pulling the largest crowds I've ever seen at political rallies, and then turning those crowds into voters. This can only help on all the above concerns. (OK, maybe I didn't hate bringing it up all that much...)
February 27, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment