Skip to main content

View Diary: Abbreviated Pundit Round-Up (149 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You can redistrict mid-decade (14+ / 0-)

    Rick Perry did it in Texas in 2003, and the Supremes said it was valid, so as soon as a state goes Blue, it can redistrict.

    We do NOT have to wait for 2020, we need to take back some state houses in 2014.

    We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

    by Urban Owl on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:08:33 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  they rigged state districts too (6+ / 0-)

      The state legislatures are no more competitive than Congress.

      "And the President of the United States - would be seated right here. I would be here. And he would be here. I would turn - and there he’d be. I could pet ‘im." - Lewis Black

      by libdevil on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 06:39:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Repugs can do this 2 - this sword cuts both ways (0+ / 0-)

      it would lead to constant redistrictings each time one side gains a partisan advantage in a state  - the stare decisis of redistricting only once every 10 years is better for the natoin in the long run.

      •  The Republicans ALREADY did this. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Minnesota Deb, a2nite, Laconic Lib

        And the Supreme Court approved.

        If Democrats can take a statehouse in 2014, they should immediately redistrict, if only to undo the gerrymandered mess that exists.

        I agree that constant redistricting is insane, but it will only end with a different Supreme Court.

        And in the meantime, there's a lot of R gerrymandered stuff out there. Having a Republican-controlled House when Democratic candidates got a significant majority of the votes is outrageous.

        We can safely abandon the doctrine of the eighties, namely that the rich were not working because they had too little money, the poor because they had too much. JK Galbraith, 1991

        by Urban Owl on Sun Feb 03, 2013 at 07:56:21 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Small quibble (0+ / 0-)

          It's not outrageous that one side controls the House when the other got a relatively small majority of the popular vote (just over a million more votes, nationally, far less than the President's 5 million vote victory).  Given the nature of district level representation, it would be reasonable and not unexpected if in a close House election, Republicans got fewer national votes and still held a 1 or 2 vote majority in the House.  Disappointing, but not outrageous.  But they still have a -large- majority.  The close loss in the popular vote total translated not into a close win or loss, but into a landslide win for Republicans.  That's ridiculous.

          "And the President of the United States - would be seated right here. I would be here. And he would be here. I would turn - and there he’d be. I could pet ‘im." - Lewis Black

          by libdevil on Mon Feb 04, 2013 at 03:35:58 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site