False. The Texas state legislature never drew up a redistricting plan. The Republicans, who were in the minority, certainly weren’t in the position to throw out a draft of redistricting that they didn’t like. You’ve got to contort your own cite to arrive at that conclusion. The redistricting plan had to be drawn up by the Courts in response to the numerous Voting Rights Act lawsuits that sprung up when a new redistricting plan (that should have reflected the latest census) was never passed.
As for your statement that the redistricting maps were “reviewed favorably by the Supreme Court,” well, that’s partially true. The Supreme Court held that the maps drawn by the 3 judge panel of the federal court didn’t violate the Voting Rights Act, but that same Supreme Court said that the states have the primary duty and responsibility to redraw their congressional districts in compliance with the United States Constitution. See Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 26 (1993). The US Supreme Court also said, “legislative reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 586 (1964). The US Supreme Court also described that task of redistricting by the federal courts as "“the unwelcome obligation of performing in the legislature’s stead, while lacking the political authoritativeness that the legislature can bring to the task.” Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 415 (1977). And the US Constitution provides, “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof . . . .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 4.
The Republicans are trying to pass redistricting legislation both because it’s politically advantageous, and because it’s their duty to do so. You attempt to paint it as undemocratic flies in the face of both logic and the law.
A lot of people thought that Clinton was ‘dirty’, and they spent a lot of time trying to prove it. They couldn’t get him on the serious charges, because witnesses kept ‘forgetting’, or taking the fifth, or dying. Documents couldn’t be found, etc. Eventually, all they could get him on was perjury.
It was partisanship in the extreme, but there WAS a lot of fishy stuff in Clinton’s past. And if stuff is found on Bush, the Democrats would do the same thing if they had a majority.
This one is silly. Tell me: How could Bush have avoided a charge of ‘subverting democracy’ in any way other than giving up and letting Gore win? Would that have made the result any more legitimate? Nonsense. The election was thrown into the courts do to an election system that didn’t have enough precision to declare a winner accurately. At no time did Gore lead in any vote or recount. Eventually, the attempts stopped, and Bush won. Them’s the breaks. Sucks for Gore, but having Gore come out on top wouldn’t have made it any more legitimate.
Democrats have engaged in redistricting routinely for decades. Both sides do it. It’s a loophole in the system, and they exploit it. Perhaps some reform is needed, but this isn’t a Republican thing.
Please. ‘The Republicans’ don’t want this recall. They’d much rather have a Democrat preside over California’s inevitable crash-and-burn. This was a lone effort by a rich malcontent.
What does morality have to do with this? Hell, what they’re doing isn’t even unethical. This is like a large-scale game of Asshole, and the president has just changed the rules, and told them that they have to drink when they’re told to. And now that the Democrats are the Asshole and have to drink everytime someone tells them to, it’s not fun anymore and so they quit and walk away.
There is absolutely no morality involved here. There’s the Democrats crying crocodile tears because they’re screwed and the Republicans drooling like Hannibal Lechter because they know they can cook the Democrats with carrots and potatoes and eat them with Chianti if they come back.
Where’s the morality you speak of, in either position?
I think my right-wing credentials are fairly well established here. Can we agree on that? Good.
For the record, I don’t support the current recall in California. I don’t support recalls in general, ANYWHERE. At this point, the argument for recalling Gray Davis comes down to undeniable truths:
California is in terrible financial shape
Gray Davis is an inept, incompetent moron, and a pompous twit as well.
In short, NOTHING the people of California didn’t already know when they went to the polls last year and voted for him!
My take? The people of California elected a jerk, and now they have to live with the consequences. If they don’t like him any more, they have my blessing to vote him out next time around.
**
But let’s remember, the Republicans weren’t the first major party to attempt to “subvert democracy” by recalling a duly elected governor they didn’t like. Anyone remember Evan Mecham? How much you wanna bet that rjung thought it was just DANDY that Arizona Democrats were leading a recall movement against Evan Mecham? And on what grounds? That Mecham was a nitwit who said a lot of stupid, embarrassing things. Again, in short, NOTHING the people of Arizona didn’t already know when they elected him!
Sometimes the people vote for idiots (presumably, we won’t all agree on which candidates are the idiots, but that’s another issue). When that happens, we should simply heave a sigh of exasperation and try harder to win next time.
Our motto in those cases should be “The people have spoken- the dumb bastards! Let’s go get drunk.”
Another problem with the OP, that astorian just reminded me of: most of the Republican commentary I’ve seen on our recall from out-of-state sources is along the line of “you’ve made your bed, now lie in it”.
astorian, you’re forgetting/omitting just a few key details from the Mecham story (or perhaps the blog you’re paraphrasing is). From just the first Google hit
A little bit more was involved than him being a nitwit, no? A link to the blog you’re basing that on might be interesting.
Airman, that was a pretty sad post from you. The foundation of a working democracy is the understanding that we’re all citizens with rights. Instead, you’re going along with the currently-popular view that anyone who disagrees with you is an enemy to be subjugated. You’re right that “there is no morality involved here” - but that makes it our responsibility to impose some, doesn’t it?
Sam, Sam, Sam, where to start cleaning up after you this time? One by one, as usual:
They “couldn’t get him” because the charges were all found groundless. There was no evidence. What does that tell you?
Like what? “Fishy” compared to what? Never mind the facts, you know the truth?
Re the 2000 election, this has been gone over before, and you still won’t acknowledge any view other than your own. Gore wanted valid votes counted. Bush did not, and succeeded in getting that stopped. Democracy demands votes be counted. It’s that simple. You’re also still pedalling the idea that this was somehow “statistically” a tie - nope, that’s evasion. This was a single event, not a stochastic phenomenon, and a full count even of valid votes (even after the antidemocratic stuff beforehand) would have led to one candidate getting the most votes. But any process that leads to your preferred result is rationalizable, ain’t it?
Every ten years, after every census, as we’ve done for a couple of centuries, regardless of who’s in power. But you might not know that. But between times? No. Another thing you’ve made up and stated as fact. These things are easy to check before you post, ya know. “Routinely” my ass.
A Republican congressman, name of Darryl Issa. There was no known effort by the GOP organization to stop him, either, was there? Speculation about their motives either way is just speculation.
In regards the election steal, redistricting, and so on… I just keep thinking, "If the Democrats tried a stunt like this, the Republicans would be screaming like a banshee with hemorrhoids about how unfair and unjust and just flat-out WRONG it was…
You base an argument on a single source known to have its own, um, viewpoint, and you’re fighting uphill. Pointing out the established reliability of the source is refuting the message.
You have misquoted your own cite. Your cite says that:
“The Seventy-seventh Legislature failed to enact a redistricting plan for the United States House of Representatives, and a three-judge federal court therefore created a plan used for the 2002 general election.”
Your cite says that the Legislature failed to ENACT a redistricting plan, which is true. I said that the Legislature had a rough draft but failed to ENACT one.
This is what my cite said about the matter:
“In 2001, the Texas Legislature had the job of redrawing the maps based on the 2000 Census. The Democrats had the majority in both chambers at the time; the Republicans were not satisfied with the results of the first drafts of the maps. The Legislature could not agree on maps in time to meet the federally-set deadline, and so the maps were turned over to the courts to decide. Our current maps were drawn by three federal judges (all of whom were appointed by Republicans). The U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the 2001 maps and declared them constitutional. Even Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, a Republican, has said that the maps drawn in 2001 are suitable to stay in place till the next census.”
My cite and your cite are in agreement. You are the one who is the contortionist here. Furthermore, your cite says:
“The United States Constitution entrusts the task of drawing congressional boundaries to the State, but there exists no mechanism to force compliance with this constitutional responsibility. The Texas Legislature has present authority to adopt a congressional redistricting plan based on the 2000 census. Unless and until the legislature adopts such a plan, the map drawn in 2002 by the three-judge court in Balderas v. Texas will continue to be the congressional redistricting plan for Texas.”
So according to your cite, the plan drawn up by the 3 judge panel is valid. Whatever the Texas republicans are doing is undemocratic and is obviously for the benefit of the Tom Delay’ political machinations:
“Mr. DeLay wants to get rid of several high-ranking Texas Dems – who happen to be in powerful positions like: senior member of the House Ways and Means Committee, a ranking member of the Agriculture Committee, a ranking member of the Rules Committee, a ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, a ranking member of the Military Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee, and a Chief Deputy Whip.”
That wasn’t an ad hominem attack, it’s not like I said that RUSH LIMBAUGH IS A BIG FAT IDIOT, did I?
It has been pointed out to me many times on these boards that the reputation or accuracy of your source is as important as the claim you are making. There are many resources on the factual inaccuracies of Rush:
LIMBAUGH: Comparing spending on entitlements to military spending: “Social Security alone would make three military budgets.” (radio, 12/13/95)
REALITY: In 1995, according to the Office for Management and Budget, the U.S. spent $291 billion on the military. Three times $291 billion is $873 billion. Social Security in 1995, according to OMB, cost $362 billion.
Well, before he could be recalled, Meacham was impeached, convicted, and removed from office. He was charged with obstructing justice and and financial improprieties. A few minor things the people of Arizona probably didn’t know when they elected him. Arizona Gov. Fife Symington was convicted a few years later on seven counts of fraud having to do with his business practices as a real estate developer. Symington, like Meachan, was a Republican, so you think arizonans would have learned by now that Republicans are criminals.
Look, you can stop caricaturing me as a Clinton basher any tmie. I didn’t say Clinton did anything wrong. I said that they couldn’t get him on stronger charges, so they went after the perjury thing. Try to read what I said, and not what you think the caricature of me in your head would say. The fact is, they found nothing on Clinton that they could make stick. As far as the law goes, that’s all that matters. Clinton was innocent. So they caught him in a lie about sex. And for what it’s worth, I would agree that it was probably a perjury trap. And if you’d make the case that a sitting president shouldn’t be tried in court during his presidency for matters like this, I would also agree.
My point is that a lot of people thought Clinton was guilty because of a patten of questionable behaviour. They tried to make that stick in a court of law, and couldn’t do it. That should have been the end of it.
Why does this have to go 'round and 'round? Gore did NOT want all valid votes counted. He wanted votes counted only in districts that he thought would help him, and he wanted the ballots counted in a way in which other ballots in other counties were not counted. The supreme court eventually agreed that this was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause. Sucks to be Gore.
It’s far from that simple, and as an engineer you should know that. The problem with that election was that the result was outside the measurement system’s capability. If you did a gauge R&R study of the election process, you’d find that measurement error was MUCH greater than the actual differential in votes. It was essentially a tie. So it went to the courts, and Bush won for the simple reason that he had more votes than Gore, and so he got to be president. I would agree completely that that election was a statistical tie and both men had an equal claim to the job. Too bad the law doesn’t allow co-presidents. Sucks to be Gore.
Come off it. A hand-count of ballots, with humans making judgements as to whether a dimple was a vote? You can’t see error in that process? Or an election system with precincts closing with a tolerance level of maybe 15 minutes? What does a late closing in a Gore or Bush district do to the skew? Then we have usability with ballots that cause errors (and not just the ‘butterfly ballot’, although that was a usability disaster). Plus, votes are hand-sorted, boxes are loaded into vehicles, they are transported around the state, etc. In some precincts around the country ‘forgotten’ boxes of votes were discovered days or weeks after the event.
The fact is, the election process is a reasonably approximation of the will of the voters, given that most elections are won by thousands or tens of thousands of votes. It’s sheer folly to think that you can just count more carefully after the fact and find a real difference of a handful of votes. No, that election was a tie. We have no way of knowing what the real will of the people was, because it was a statistical dead heat, and any difference between the two men was swamped by the noise of the system.
Every ten years is, by definition, a ‘routine’. Are you sure you’re an engineer? Go look up the history of Gerrymandering. What the Republicans are trying to do is nothing new.
Exactly my point. Issa did this on his own. The Republicans didn’t ask him to do it, and didn’t want to. Most commentators agree that the Republicans are better off with Gray Davis piloting that sinking ship. They’d rather play to hatred of Davis in 2004 than have to explain why the Terminator didn’t cause a Republican miracle.
The pattern of behavior exhibited by the GOP is clear, easy-to-see evidence that the GOP subverts democracy in pursuit of winning elections.
Take the GOP-led impeachment of Clinton for (it’s still so ridiculous that it bears repeating) a blowjob. It’s been well established through the confession of former participants that Clinton was the victim of a well-organized campaign to bring him down financed by GOP billionaire Scaife. The GOP wanted Clinton out because he had demonstrated repeatedly that he had the political know-how and the personal charisma needed to beat them. They wanted Gore as a lame-duck President for strictly political purposes.
The 2000 election was the most blatant example of GOP subversion of democracy. It wasn’t just that Bush won the election as a result of an extraordinary decision rendered by Supreme Court members appointed by his father. It was also that the Florida state electoral machinery was corrupted by his brother, the governor of said state. Frex, many votes were disqualified by a crooked, partisan “consulting” firm that was hired to purge ineligible voters from the voting rolls. They did so with such enthusiasm that in addition to prughing actual felons from the rolls, they purged people with names that were similar to that of felons, people whose voting rights had been returned to them, etc., etc. Not coincidentally, the majority of those people were poor, black and likely Democratic voters. There was also chicanery involving the use of illegal absentee ballots, a favorite stratagem of Repubs.
Now we have the California recall election (funded with votes purchased by a GOP multi-millionaire) and redistricting attempts that violate the commonly accepted practices of Texas and Colorado. Why? To help Dubya win the 2004 election. The same collection of illegal, semi-legal and legal but deeply immoral techniques of subverting democracy will be used in those states should the Repubs win them.
The GOP under the Bush machine has become as corrupt and evil as Tammany Hall. If GOP supporters had an ounce of concern for the respectability for their own party, they’d be leading the charge to change it.
Then you can stop posting, without factual basis, things like this:
and not try to weasel later by saying things like this:
“Lots of people” my ass. You said it. You back it up.[
At first, yes. But his was not the only POV - the FSC had one, which was the democratic one.
You know better.
Using totally transparent reasoning that they themselves refuse to stand behind.
Sucks to have so little principle that one damages the thing one wants so badly in the effort to get it.
No gauge R&R was done, nor would it be applicable. This isn’t a case of repeated measurements. You count things, fully and faithfully and once and you get a total. Calling a nonstochastic phenomenon what it isn’t is dishonest.
Read what you’re told. The problem here isn’t redistricting, it’s doing it off-schedule. That’s the difference. You’re claiming the Democrats do it too? Back it up (you can’t) or back off.
Cite for the GOP organization, not “most commentators” (in your view, at that) not trying to stop him?
There are PLENTY of repeatable processes in an election count. You think those punch-card machines are 100% accurate? They are going to accept some ballots that should be invalidated (false positives). They are going to reject some ballots that are fine (false negatives). They are no doubt going to damage some of the ballots in the process.
The recount Gore wanted counted only the false negatives. They were only looking at ballots rejected by the machines. How about the ballots the machines accepted, but shouldn’t have?
There was another repeatable process - the people themselves doing the hand-count. These people were sitting for hours on end, hold ballots up to a light, and making judgements on what was or wasn’t a valid vote. Just how accurate do you think THAT was? Then add in selection bias (the Republicans are more likely to accept a ballot that favors Bush, and vice versa). Then add in fatigue. Just how repeatable do you think this process is? If you recounted the entire state by hand, and then turned around and did it again, do you honestly believe you’d get the same answer? Even within 1000 votes?
Then there was the degredation of the process itself. The cards were being extensively handled. After every counting session, they would find loose chads on the floor. The state of the cards was being changed through the process.
Here’s another repeatably process - manufacturing errors in the cards themselves. Incomplete perforations, tears, offset holes, all kinds of things. We have no idea of the effect of those.
Those are all errors just in counting. Then there are the systemic errors - usability problems with ballots, transportation issues, early and late precinct closures, lost ballots, etc.
The government doesn’t talk about this stuff, because it wants to maintain an illusion of perfect democracy, where “every vote counts”. In fact, an election is an approximation of the will of the voters. Usually, the gap between the two candidates is big enough that measurement error isn’t a factor, and we can honestly say that Candidate A was chosen by a majority. But in cases where elections are very close, we can’t. We should stop pretending that we can. The proper procedure going forward is not to try to ‘perfect’ the election system through better voting machines, but to put in place new rules for ‘ties’. Run-off elections, for example.
