Stage Eight
In her July 18th post, "Editorial 2: Redistricting is a national issue (blog stage 7)", the author of "A Real Nation" argues that congressional redistricting should not be decided by the state but rather by independent firms whose bids are then voted on. While I agree that redistricting should not be in the hands of elected officials, I am not sure that her proposed plan to center around the state capital and work around in a spiral would be best for residents. Often, the state capital is not the most populous nor the most central city, and very populous cities in far-flung regions are likely to be bisected unfairly. While the author may believe that incidental disenfranchisement is preferable to calculated gerrymandering, I think her plan for redistricting is not the most effective.
"Disenfranchisement" is a strong word, says I to the author of the excellent blog, Normalcy Not Nostrums. The state-capital-as-center-of-spiral plan in my post was merely an example of an idea, really just a thought experiment about something that might be preferable to the current Wild-West-until-you-get-caught-being-too-blatant system. However, to the commenter's criticism I will say that bisecting a very populous city in a "far-flung region" does not strike me as especially unfair because it would likely result in at least one if not both districts voting the way the entire city might. Creatively dividing a city into more than two oddly shaped districts, as has been done in Austin such that it resembles a pie cut by a kitten, is of course much more problematic and the very thing to be avoided. On the whole, I appreciate this commenter's points, value her opinions above any other blogger's, and would be relieved to see in my lifetime someone like her in our nation's highest office.
ReplyDelete