Ok, when do we get to gerrymander?

[JeremyWestenn]

Having the Congress for these next two years is nice, but exactly when is the next census? I love me some gerrymandering!!

But in all seriousness this is how a new majority keeps the majority. Eventually, without a shadow of doubt in my mind, we Democrats will piss the hell out of everyone and get voted out, just like the Republicans. It's the way of things.

[Sherman A1]

1. The census is in 2010

and I believe that the congressional districts are set within the state legislatures. A majority of seats are safe Dem or Republican already. So I am not sure of the benefit you might be wanting.

[NewJeffCT]

5. We have the DeLay precedent

meaning, we can do it any time we damn well please. Just too bad that we couldn't oust Arnie in California, as we could have picked up a seat or two there.

[unblock]

2. in the texas travesty, the supremos ruled that you can gerrymander at any time

of course, that probably only applies to disgraced republican-controlled legislatures....

look to the states where we gained control of the legislatures to tilt things our way.

[acmejack]

7. I'm sure that will be revisited as soon as we want all those seats back.

And wish to conduct our own off season redistricting and the republiclowns complain and file their own suit and James Baker litlgates it for them. The Courts opinions are fluid now, but they are NOT partisan. Right, Sandy? They gave up their claims to legitimacy in my mind in 2000. They are just another part of the political bullshit machine now. If W adds one more, which he undoubtedly will, with our weak kneed Legislature's acquiescence, they will make our lives miserable for the rest of my lifetime, for sure. But remember-it's a Republic, not a Democracy!

[FormerDittoHead]

3. AT THE VERY LEAST we should make the districts less "wiggly"..

I agree we should redraw the districts, AT THE VERY LEAST we should make them FAIR, but hell yes, if the courts say we can do it, and the Republicans haven't shown ONE DAMN BIT of working WITH us, I say let the knife cut the other way...

[sam sarrha]

4. praise be to gOD the Republicans dont appoint judges that legislate from the bench..!!! Amen.!!!

[DURHAM D]

6. I guess someone should make a list of those states

where we have the state legislatures, the governor's seat and we don't have a majority of the federal house.

[Pab Sungenis]

10. New Jersey.

Well, technically we have the majority but only by one. We have 7 and the pubs have 6. We should be able to get 2 more seats out of that one.

[PATRICK]

8. results of gerrymandering

The KINDEST benefit is if a fine Democrat is secure enough to "fearlessly" speak out on progressive or daring issues- while the rest sit back and more quietly admire. The WORST is when the majority party members locally find an anointed hack subservient to outside interests, princely in arrogance, stupid in crony-ship that even mass defections to the other party's candidate can't help and primary challenges are like scaling Mt. Everest.

So detrimental and dangerous is the attractiveness of "safe" seats that it is like having a mountain of gold or pool of honey in the neighborhood. Dominance will happen naturally so the issue of abuse being regulated against is a better, imperfect solution than "gerrymandering them back". Splitting or lumping of strong constituencies shows the ongoing regulation of the people BY the pols.

Just some initial musings. Isn't it time it was the other way around? Better the regulation of politicians and candidates and the process than carving up "communities" to tampen down democratic lumps. term limits. Town hall process of choosing candidates. Wide open primaries. Runoffs. Especially runoffs to prevent a truly unpopular politician from sneaking in with less than 50% of his/her own massively dominant party registration. Regulations against undue outside interference in candidate choice starting most from the federal sticky fingers down to the state special interests. Term limits ACCORDING to one's dominance factors.

Dumb, tricky, inadequate, no guarantee of success. The same is true of gerrymandering and intended cheating. Dynamism and insecurity will create better heroes and more competent weasels.

In NY Walsh(R) beats Mattei(D) whose strong challenge eats up the GOP registration advantage like ice cream left melting on the table. The grateful Dems(Dead) who were wont to doff their caps to receive some meager favors from the invincible lord voted for change. So did some Republicans. Walsh sniffs bitterly that this is the thanks he gets for all the work he has done for the citizens. He is "disappointed" in the voters and the victory has left a "hole in his heart", presumably not so large as the one would be in his head were he a credible politician to be actually held accountable for insulting his electorate. Oh these little pampered princelings, the proud, the few, the protected. The lifetime careerists who "deserve" our admiration for having fenced in the sheepfolds and slaughterhouses to their complete satisfaction. Do we want even the more moral, more progressive, more effective officials to enjoy these privileges at democracy's expense and fall prey to the moral decay such separation inevitably creates?

[IndyOp]

9. Don't gerrymander, just draw fair districts.

When you gerrymander or make laws to benefit your party it will always come back and bite you in the butt. Case in point: In one of the Carolinas (N or S) when Dems were in power and the President was a Rethug they passed a law that said that if you voted straight party in an election for President then you had to also cast a separate vote for President to have voted in the election. That is, a straight party vote did not count for the Presidential race. Think about it. When the numbers of people voting straight party D rose, many straight party votes did not count for Kerry or Gore.

Don't play games, just try to create a fair playing field for democracy.

Just my opinion...