Castro Stepping Down

[mattp]

Wasn't at least one stated purpose of gerrymandering to more or less guarantee racial minorities seats in congress?

 

I think that has been a stated reason for it in some instances. However, I'd venture a guess that some more neutral form of general redistricting would still result in there being districts dominated by black voters, hispanics, various Asian populations, or for that matter Mormons.

[mattp]

Mattp- Who determines congressional districts?

 

 

Don't the states do it?

[sirwoofalot]

Mattp- Who determines congressional districts?

 

Castro

 

did I get us back on the correct thread?

[Peter_Puget]

Well that depends on what LATELY means but who currently controls the House and Senate?

[sirwoofalot]

Mattp- Who determines congressional districts?

 

 

Don't the states do it?

 

Yes, I think it is individual states.

 

[sirwoofalot]

Well that depends on what LATELY means but who currently controls the House and Senate?

 

Democrates

[sirwoofalot]

Well that depends on what LATELY means but who currently controls the House and Senate?

 

The Crows

[Peter_Puget]

yes it is done at the State level.

[JayB]

Wasn't at least one stated purpose of gerrymandering to more or less guarantee racial minorities seats in congress?

 

I think that has been a stated reason for it in some instances. However, I'd venture a guess that some more neutral form of general redistricting would still result in there being districts dominated by black voters, hispanics, various Asian populations, or for that matter Mormons.

 

Are you categorically opposed to gerrymandering, or is this a suitable rationale for redrawing the boundaries of Congressional districts?

[mattp]

I haven't studied it, Jay. If somebody convinced me that we needed to have some measure of gerrymandering or there would never be any representation of a minority view in either local or state or national government, I guess I might be willing to accept some form of gerrymandering. I have not encountered that argument.

 

In general, I think that if we say it is OK for the party in power to manipulate the process based on a desired result we are undermining a sense of fairness in the process.

[sirwoofalot]

I haven't studied it, Jay. If somebody convinced me that we needed to have some measure of gerrymandering or there would never be any representation of a minority view in either local or state or national government, I guess I might be willing to accept some form of gerrymandering. I have not encountered that argument.

 

In general, I think that if we say it is OK for the party in power to manipulate the process based on a desired result we are undermining a sense of fairness in the process.

 

... And yet both sides do it.

[mattp]

... And yet both sides do it.

 

So that justifies redrawing the voting districts to shut the other party out, contracting with a private company who says they are going to make voting machines that will deliver the votes to your side and then refusing to address complaints about how it looks as if they did exactly that, or interfering with access to the polls in the other party's stronghold districts? That justifies accepting the word of the voting machine company who says they can't make a machine that produces a paper receipt when they make bank machines that do that flawlessly and which - by the way - are much more "hackproof?"

 

I don't know whether fair elections would favor which party, but are you arguing that we shouldn't try?

[chucK]

... And yet both sides do it.

 

Republican reactionaries remember your words, as you will be seeing this all from the other side in one year.

[sirwoofalot]

... And yet both sides do it.

 

So that justifies redrawing the voting districts to shut the other party out, contracting with a private company who says they are going to make voting machines that will deliver the votes to your side and then refusing to address complaints about how it looks as if they did exactly that, or interfering with access to the polls in the other party's stronghold districts? That justifies accepting the word of the voting machine company who says they can't make a machine that produces a paper receipt when they make bank machines that do that flawlessly and which - by the way - are much more "hackproof?"

 

I don't know whether fair elections would favor which party, but are you arguing that we shouldn't try?

 

Yeah, did that happen to you too? It happened to my brother, in the last general election he voted the Republican ticket, and when it came time to confirm his choice for governor it came up Gregoire. And he could not get it changed back!

And then when the people from the elections office found out he was voting Republican instead of Democrat he was just blown off.

Yes, those machines do need to be corrected.

 

[JayB]

Matt:

 

Are you sure that the CEO of Diebold wasn't speaking in his capacity as Republican Party Chairman (or whatever party chair that he held) concerning their efforts to get out the vote in his state, since the statement that you are basing your case on appeared in a *fund-raising letter*?

 

"Hello:

 

Here is part one of my diabolical, top-secret conspiracy to subvert the democratic process, that I will henceforth detail in this public letter...."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mattp]

It seems to me Woofie's argument is:

 

They didn't do it.

 

But if they did, it is OK because the other guys do it too.

 

You're right, ChucK. I don't think he'll stick with this line of reasoning if it goes the other way.

 

 

[empire]

voting machines that will deliver the votes to your side and then refusing to address complaints about how it looks as if they did exactly that, or interfering with access to the polls in the other party's stronghold districts? That justifies accepting the word of the voting machine company who says they can't make a machine that produces a paper receipt when they make bank machines that do that flawlessly and which - by the way - are much more "hackproof?"

I don't know whether fair elections would favor which party, but are you arguing that we shouldn't try?

All these problems will disappear as soon as you commies stop hobbling the inevitable privatization of the electoral/political process and allow the eventual transfer of power to corporate fiefdoms whose constituents will simply be able to vote with their dollars that they earn from their masters, as they have already been trained to do. There, are we back on topic now?

[mattp]

Jay, the "statement that I am basing my case on" is the argument that they couldn't make machines that would reliably produce a receipt. It is the apparent showing that the machines were hackable. It is the exit polling and other data that suggests that this may have happened.

[JayB]

I haven't studied it, Jay. If somebody convinced me that we needed to have some measure of gerrymandering or there would never be any representation of a minority view in either local or state or national government, I guess I might be willing to accept some form of gerrymandering. I have not encountered that argument.

 

In general, I think that if we say it is OK for the party in power to manipulate the process based on a desired result we are undermining a sense of fairness in the process.

 

If no one has put forth this argument, from where did the practice of drawing congressional boundaries along racial lines come from? A statistical quirk?

 

You don't think that this process could be used as a backhanded way to secure either a majority Democrat or Republican district?

[mattp]

I didn't say nobody had put forth the argument, Jay, and in fact I suggested the opposite: I said I believed that HAD been at least one historic basis for the practice. Yes, the practice certainly CAN be used as a backhanded way to produce a desired result.

 

In general, I think that if we say it is OK for the party in power to manipulate the process based on a desired result we are undermining a sense of fairness in the process.

 

 

[JayB]

... And yet both sides do it.

 

So that justifies redrawing the voting districts to shut the other party out, contracting with a private company who says they are going to make voting machines that will deliver the votes to your side and then refusing to address complaints about how it looks as if they did exactly that, or interfering with access to the polls in the other party's stronghold districts? That justifies accepting the word of the voting machine company who says they can't make a machine that produces a paper receipt when they make bank machines that do that flawlessly and which - by the way - are much more "hackproof?"

 

I don't know whether fair elections would favor which party, but are you arguing that we shouldn't try?

 

No insinuations based on the statement in the public fundraising letter here.

 

Yet again, we apparently have an open and damning conspiracy that *no one* in Congress or elsewhere has seized on...for some inexplicable reason.

 

If the Democrats had reason to believe that this actually happened, and credible evidence to back up an investigation - they'd sit on their hands? This would make Watergate look like cheating at a church bingo game, bring down the administration, and inflict lasting damage on the Republican party but...

 

Come-ondude.

 

Put down the partisan crack-pipe.

[Peter_Puget]

I didn't say nobody had put forth the argument, Jay, and in fact I suggested the opposite: I said I believed that HAD been at least one historic basis for the practice. Yes, the practice certainly CAN be used as a backhanded way to produce a desired result.

 

In general, I think that if we say it is OK for the party in power to manipulate the process based on a desired result we are undermining a sense of fairness in the process.

 

 

Here we agree Mattp.

 

Perfect example: The Democats in Texas had used District boundries to keep Republicans out of office for years and then when the Republicans corrected this outrage the liberal lawyers it the Justice Dept fought them tooth and nail. Thankfully all was put right (just like in the Bush v Gore debacle) by the supreme court.

 

By the way isn't explicit racial gerrymandering unconstituional?

[JayB]

I didn't say nobody had put forth the argument, Jay, and in fact I suggested the opposite: I said I believed that HAD been at least one historic basis for the practice. Yes, the practice certainly CAN be used as a backhanded way to produce a desired result.

 

In general, I think that if we say it is OK for the party in power to manipulate the process based on a desired result we are undermining a sense of fairness in the process.

 

 

Okay. I suggest you look up the etymology of the term, then speculate about whether this is a unique failing of either our time or any particular party. If it's neither, then one might expect it to disappear from the usual conspiro-litany you direct against the Republicans.

[lI1|1!]

Talk about thread drift

 

[sirwoofalot]

It seems to me Woofie's argument is:

 

They didn't do it.

 

But if they did, it is OK because the other guys do it too.

 

You're right, ChucK. I don't think he'll stick with this line of reasoning if it goes the other way.

 

 

Sorry, I am just spraying.

 

There are many points that you bring up and it is kind of hard to deal with each one individually.

 

 

1.) The dividing up of congressional districts.

2.) Interfering with access to the pulls.

3.) The use of electronic voting machines.

a. Voting machine companies.

b. Hack proofing electronic voting machines.

4.) Trying to improve our system.

 

There are far too many points to go over so I will just address of few of the ones I think are major.

 

Dividing up of the congressional districts.

It is not good to divide up the congressional districts so one party has an unfair advantage over another party. I can not say which party did it first, but I am quite sure it is over 150 years old. Does that make it right? No. It is unique to just republicans? No.

 

Using electronic voting machines.

I do agree with you that the technology seem to be available to allow for an electronic voting, to be accurate. Ultimately I electronic voting machine will be more accurate than our current physical hand counting.

 

Finally WE MUST FIND A BETTER WAY TO HOLD OUR ELECTIONS. There have been more than enough complaints from both sides to make every American embarrassed. Prior to the past two presidential elections the results have not been very close and so abnormalities were not a concern and would not have changed the final outcome. However, the past two presidential elections have magnify these issues that do need to be addressed.