Why can't the courts or the congress find a non-partisan way to do this, so we don't have gerrymandering and all this trickery. What's wrong with competitive districts, selected by a bipartisan committee (or even better, and apolitical committtee).

This precedent is bad for the GOP in the long run; under this system, several states could re-draw districts to cut out GOP seats. Careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

When I think about Tom Delay happy, I wince for two reasons: I disagree with him on so many issues, including fairness and transparency, and I picture that creepy picture he had for his mugshot, which always unnerves me.

Thank goodness the SCOTUS upheld the right of citizens elected in Texas, (our state legislature), to determine our own congressional districts.

If other states believe their congressional districts do not adequately represent their citizens then I hope they change their district maps as well. I believe the best way to do that is by electing state officials who can best represent their local populations. Here in Texas that means Replubicans/Conservatives. If the Democrats/Liberals have a problem with that they should try to persuade their neighbors to their point of view.

Well, as things stand you have 32 representatives in the house, and 11 of them are Democrats while 21 are Republicans. In most statewide elections (not counting Bush's run for President since he was a homestate guy) the split is usually 55-45, not 66-33. Look at Clinton/Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, etc. So, yes, Texas is majority conservative. Yes, they have every right to send to two Republican Senators, or have a Republican governor. But these districts basically give 55% of the state 66% of the power, while 45% of the state falls to 33% of power.

That is not what I would say equal representation looks like, especially since that 45% has no representation in the Senate.

I live in Henry Bonilla's District. San Antonio is 70% Hispanic and so is South Texas. All 4 South Texas Districts CURRENTLY HAVE Hispanic Congressmen.

It takes an idiotic Supreme Court to say that a Hispanic District surrounded by 3 other Hispanic Districts is NOT FAIR to Hispanics. What do they want to count as voters, Rattlesnakes, scorpiopns and ants, or deer and javelinas? Sheesh! How stupid!

Charlie, you don't get it. Bonilla is a Republican. Therefore, five Supreme Court Justices have concluded he is not a Hispanic. TX must redistrict so only Supreme Court certified Hispanics (i.e. Democrats) are elected.

KimylOh,
Obviously your concept of equal representation is at odds with how Federalism works. A Congressman represents all citizens of his district and a Senator represents all citezens of his state. As a state increases in population that state gains additional congressional seats and the states that lose population will lose seats thus equal representation is maintained.

FWIW, all I ask of my elected officials is that they; 1) caucus with their named party, 2) attend all their official functions, 3) engage in informed debate, 4),vote and 5) be able to lucidly explain their votes.

Again, I am not arguing for Hispanics only representing hispanics, I am only pointing out that Delay's redistricting plan did not make Texas more representative of its make-up.

K.O. Then go complain about MA, which is 10-0 Dem despite 1,071,000 votes for Bush from 37% of its electorate.

The TX map is very fair compared to that

I'm not saying that is totally fair, but I am pointing out that Delay's actions did not make Texas more representative. I am not here to defend this practice in general, just to show it as problematic.

Look at the Northeast--they will elect principled, moderate Republicans--but if those same Republicans are subsumed by the more right wing elements in the house, it does little good. I am all for competitive districts which would help get rid of career politicians, a sense of entitlement, a lack of accountability to voters, and would also help prevent people from stagnating in politics for 40 years, each year increasing the likelihood of their corruption, their intellectual capacity.

In that case, K.O., will you be HONEST and finally support the long needed defeat of KKK Leader Byrd of Virginia and Chappaquidic (sp) Teddy of Massachusetts along with Airhead Biden of Delaware. They have all stagnated and calcified for over 30 years in the senate.

K.O., first, the ideology of congressmen can be left to the voters, it should not be the map makers concern. Second, in a year the R's won every statewide office in TX the state elected 17 D's and 15R's to the house. The map DeLay replaced was hardly representative. Given the prior D gerrymanders of Georgia and Maryland why should the R's have settled for say 19 or 20 seats? If the voters in TX wanted D congressmen thye should not have elected R's to control the legislature

So they overcorrected then. Regardless of the specifics of the Texas gerrymander redistrict, a nonpartisan way to draw districts so that representatives don't spend their time in safe districts is something I want.

For the record I think Byrd is a good statesman, Kennedy has been there too long, and Biden is a good Senator (who loves to wax intellectual on talk shows). I just don't think we can have a representative democracy with a 90% incumbent re-elect rate because we don't get new ideas or critical analysis of old ideas.

Only a complete idiot believes it is possible to have a "nonpartisan" form of drawing political boundaries.

Since the whole purpose is political, the process can hardly be otherwise. WHO would "nonpartisanly" draw districts? Judges? Academics? NGO leaders?

It is to laugh.

Of course, no proposal for "nonpartisan" redistricting could allow for the people's influence, because it would take power AWAY from elected officials and give it to non-elected - and therefore unaccountable - elites. Who, of course, would have to be appointed by . . . who?

This ain't Plato's Republic. "Philosopher Kings" don't just appear.

õ¿õ

KO, you're certainly entitled to believe we don't have a representative democracy because incumbents are apt to get re-elected but that does not make it so. To me, it sounds silly.

Agree to disagree I guess. I think it's possible to have some people together, from both major parties to agree on districts that are competitive and ordinary instead of tortured and safe.

And yes, I think that incumbent advantages make things less representative, because new ideas, new blood and challenges are rare, and yet they are the lifeblood of democracy. Having a real choice at the ballot is great, but when incumbents have so many advantages, choice is limited.

If you want to know the truth of it, and this is something I discussed at length with conservatives and liberals in college, a proportional representation would be far more representative than our two party system. Then you could go our and vote for the party that matters to you most, instead of whichever one is closest. As it is, we have very few representatives who are vocal and passionate about issues that people care deeply about. But that is just me. Eliminating the electoral college, providing public financing of campaigns, and having proportional representation would all improve our representative democracy, but they would ruffle too many feathers in the two big parties.

If you want to reduce the power of incumbency, then enact Term Limits Now!

/rant

Kimyl Oh! at July 2, 2006 12:59 AM

a proportional representation would be far more representative than our two party system. Then you could go our and vote for the party that matters to you most, instead of whichever one is closest.

Toeing the 'party line' is what disgusted Zell Miller, and turned him from a die-hard Democrat into a Democrat that the party left behind. Party leaders make mistakes, and there should always be a shot at defeating party leadership that loses it's way. Witness the immigration debate.

providing public financing of campaigns,

representative democracy

I see your point, but I think it could be solved by having say, one Senator per state, and then a slate of Senators at-large. Then you can pick Senator Pro-Life, or Senator Gun-Control or Senator Green Trees and increase the variety of points of view in the Senate.

This whole logic of deciding what to fund has been rejected by the courts for numerous schemes, from taxation to student fees. The idea is not that you pay taxes to support the candidate you hate, it is that you have a pool of money, people have to get signatures to get access to it, and then they use that money instead of corporate money, lobbyist money, and voter money. You might even be able to add an exception where they can except donations of 50 dollars or less to offset government costs or something.

I think more people would like the idea of candidates who are responsible to them first, and not to lobbyists to get money to campaign in two years and market your way into office. I think jon Stewart said it well when he said (as far as money being free speech);

Done. Here's my idea. You write this down. Money no longer equals free speech. We take it back to the court. We get the court to say that money doesn't equal free speech. Cause I'll guarantee you this, if you are in a debate and one side is arguing reasonably and the other side is handing out $10,000 a person that debate team will typically win.

And as for splitting hairs about what we are, democracy means that the majority selects our representatives, so we are a democratic republic as well. Direct democracy has been the trend, from giving people direct election of Senators to the newest ideal of eliminating or circumventing the electoral college by having states agree to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.
I wouldn't publicize or campaign to hard on the "we are not a democracy" phrase, unless you want to get into the meaty stuff about how uninformed we are, how few people vote, and how they vote based on marketing campaigns that appeal to their ideals, rather than the ideals themselves, or how they can protest people in a free speech zone miles away from their elected representatives, etc. etc. etc.