Skip to main content

View Diary: To Create a More Perfect California: What California's Redistricting Commission Should Have Drawn (58 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah that is a terrible map. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jncca

    Bakersfield is split in three. Part of Bakersfield is combined with communities on the coast. There's a mountain range between the two that nobody crosses.

    Stockton is split in three, and part of it is combined with Bay Area suburbs that should be separate. Sacramento with Bay Area suburbs as well.

    Part of San Jose with Santa Cruz.

    The water of Bay is crossed multiple times. I've literally never before seen a map that does that before. It's a bad idea.

    Los Angeles is hard to see. But one of the green districts combines rich white parts of western L.A. with South-Central. A terrible idea.

    It crosses mountains again to combine San Bernardino and Riverside; the two should be separate.

    http://mypolitikal.com/

    by Inoljt on Tue May 07, 2013 at 06:15:58 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why exactly? (0+ / 0-)

      Geography determining politics? Wealth as a criteria? Can't you see this is exactly the same excuse for conservatives and liberals making up districts? Take politics out of this stuff. This system does that very elegantly.

      Do facts matter anymore?

      by Sinan on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:46:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This argument doesn't make sense (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sapelcovits

        Of course geography determines politics; since when does it not? At no time in political history, fair redistricting or otherwise, was geography not a factor in drawing districts. Districts are inherently geographical: separating the two is oxymoronic.

        I don't see how this type of line-drawing automatically means objective and fair; that's just an assumption (an unsound one at that). It simply replaces one set of criteria with another, even more arbitrary set. Sure, looks good on a piece of paper, but legislators do not represent pieces of paper; they represent people. If you want to look at aesthetically pleasing things, go to an art museum, not into politics.

        Also, it simply lends itself to other types of manipulation. For example, one can conceivably alter the number of districts, further enfranchising certain areas and/or disenfranchising others. The notion that taking away something makes people less manipulative (especially in an area of society defined by such) is utter and dangerous naïveté.

        Lastly, about taking politics out of redistricting. It cannot be overstated that redistricting is in itself a political act. It involves political representation, political boundaries, political careers, political inclusion and exclusion, etc. Trying to take politics out of redistricting is like trying to suck the air out of a room with a vacuum cleaner. Good luck with that.

        23, D, pragmatic progressive (-4.50, -5.18), CA-14.

        by kurykh on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:18:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Sure. (0+ / 0-)

          But what that system does is make the districts conform to a simple mathematical scheme that does not have politics as its core nor does it care about anything but citizenship as a criteria for representation. Saying that even this system could be manipulated by politics is accurate but at the very least, politics would play a significantly smaller role than one taken by subjective means. Geography does not vote nor does it represent a policy goal, it is simply the science of geography. Where people live in terms of geography might dictate their means of survival and perhaps shape their politics but then so does which church you were raised in, which gender you are, which school you went to and so on. I am of the opinion that by doing something like this scheme, we will move towards forming totally objective districts that force people to acknowledge each other and elect people who serve their districts not their politics. I am a liberal and my personal bias would be to make districts as liberal as possible and make conservatives a marginal power. Why should my personal political objectives be the determining factor in something as important as a congressional district? In many ways, this discussion relates to states and federalism as well. I see very little benefit from having states as guides to voting power. It ends up making the minority the key power broker over the majority.

          Do facts matter anymore?

          by Sinan on Wed May 08, 2013 at 05:05:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your mistake is "totally objective districts" (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Zack from the SFV, hankmeister

            There is no such thing. Let me repeat: there is no such thing as a totally objective district. The "fairness" of a district is inherently subjective, and we can argue how fair a district is until the cows come home, under any criterion that it is drawn.

            The logic you are presenting is "if there is no human involvement then it is objective and fair." You never addressed how this assumption is valid. I've pointed out how this is patently untrue and have yet to hear a response.

            "I am of the opinion that by doing something like this scheme, we will move towards forming totally objective districts that force people to acknowledge each other and elect people who serve their districts not their politics."
            Random collection of communities leads to attention to every community and intercommunity dialogue? As someone who grew up in an underrepresented low-income community, that is absolutely false. When you have an aggregation of communities, those with power at the moment will assert themselves over other competing voices, and this only serves to stifle disenfranchised and underrepresented voices. The notion that all voices have equal footing and get equal treatment is utterly naive, unrealistic, and dangerous. This is politics, not peace and conflict studies.

            23, D, pragmatic progressive (-4.50, -5.18), CA-14.

            by kurykh on Wed May 08, 2013 at 05:40:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site