TEXAS REDISTRICTING: Texas Dems Just As Sleazy as Tom DeLay?

[ulTRAX]

A lot has been made about Tom DeLay's attempt to interfere with Texas redistricting in an attempt to pick up more GOP seats.

Yet... the screams of moral indignation ring kind of hollow when we see that the Texas Democrats did the same thing to the GOP back in the 1990s. I first heard about this in Robert Dahl's book How Democratic Is The American Constitution. When I posted this elsewhere some Texan was indignant saying:

"You know nothing about Texas politics. To equate what was legitimately drawn districts overseen by a federal court to what Tom DeLay did with Texas Redistricting is repulsive. Why did Texas Democrats win a majority of Congressional seats in the 1990s. It was simple. We had superior candidates who got out and met with conservative constituents and served their interests as well....

Unless you are from Texas you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in regards to Texas Redistricting.

If you want to promote your Naderites pablum that they are all the same, take it elsewhere."

Could I have been that wrong? Not being able to find the Dahl quote I decided to start from scratch. I made a spreadsheet using 1992 election data from
http://www.polidata.us/pub/reports/489292a.pdf which gave me these results

Final Numbers of 1992 Texas Congressional vote:

Party----Votes-------------Seats Won
DEM-----2806044 (50.2%)---- 21 (70%)
GOP-----2685970 (48%)------- 9 (30%)
OTHER-----97157 (1.7%)

70% of the seats with only 50% of the vote? Sounds like Texas Dems were begging for payback.

Here's the spreadsheet: http://members.tripod.com/romcache/TEXAS_1992_ELECTION.xlr
It should open with any similar program. You may have to save it to disk to open it.

[dogman]

1. You've only repeated DeLay's arguement, that's what he said.

The point is redistricting is done after a census not when you've gained control of the legislature. This may very well have come to pass in 2010 anyway. Does that make it right? I guess the GOP can play by its' own rules since they have the power. On Edit: The possible violation of Texas law to achieve his goals might make him a little bit sleazier.

[DaveinMD]

2. correct

this is the first time that redistricting was done after the alotted time. Its supposed to be done every 10 years. Not whenever you control all the levers of government.

[Not_Giving_Up]

3. Exactly

There was a group of dems who left the state TWICE to avoid voting for redistricting. DeLay had Homeland Security looking for them at one point. Can we say misuse of power? He was slapped on the wrist for that.

[ulTRAX]

8. is there any law?

I believe redistricting is required after a federal census but I'm not aware of any provision that says it can only be done once in 10 years. Apportionment of seats, maybe... but setting districts?

I suspect that if the shoe was on the other foot... Dems would be hollering to do the same.

Wouldn't be ironic if DeLay, one of the most sleazy people in the GOP, was actually on the right side of this issue? Was his plan undoing an imbalance? Or was it creating its own?

[DaveinMD]

9. we've never done the same

there doesn't have to be a law for it to be an accepted practice. We cannot afford to play nice any longer. They sure aren't.

[tx_dem41]

12. "I suspect that if the shoe was on the other foot...Dems would be hollerin

to do the same"? What do you base this on? Or are you just guessing?

C'mon, stop being soooo transparent. I mean, at least make it a little bit of a game for us....please?

[ulTRAX]

30. I guess you haven't read........

Some of the other posts in this thread like this one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1468895#1469044

There's a certain pathology in partisanship. They place their side winning above most else... including moral principle.

Given the human penchant for selective perception, it's a lot easier to see this pathology in the other side.

[NV Whino]

39. It's called gerrymandering

There is a law against it. Redistricting is allowed once every ten years after a national census is taken. Delay broke not only the gerrymandering law but illegally used federal funds and resources to (illegally) pursue the democratic senators who left the state to forstall a vote.

Delay is as evil and corrupt as they come. Take him down, Texas!

[hughee99]

64. There is really no law against gerrymandering

Other than a token Voting Rights Act provision to protect racial minorities. Most of the rules have been left to the states themselves. We have former Massachusetts Gov. Elbridge Gerry to thank for this practice, and if you take a close look at Massachusetts congressional districts, you'll find this is also a common practice there. If Delay broke the law as part of this, then he should be punished, but the practice itself, as despicable as it is, is not illegal.

[Melissa G]

131. You are one Delirious writer. Texas becomes a Minority majority

State somewhere around this year. Generally we minorities have good sense and vote DEM. This was a blatant effort to disenfranchise the now majority of the state. I was there day after day watching the lies.....

[ulTRAX]

4. I think the point of redistricting is....

I didn't hear DeLay's comment but I'm sure it was no secret what the Dems did in Texas. If a gross injustice is done in redistricting stripping citizens of repesentation... why should it wait another 7 years?

I think the proper position is that Gerrymandering is immoral regardless who does it. Our political system is screwed up enough without the Parties making it more so.

[DaveinMD]

5. I'm not going to unilaterally disarm

We cannot afford to play nice while the other side resorts to full scale nuclear war. I'm not going to lay down for them and I'm going to use every tool at my disposal.

[ulTRAX]

18. OK... just don't claim.......

DaveinMD wrote: "I'm not going to unilaterally disarm We cannot afford to play nice while the other side resorts to full scale nuclear war. I'm not going to lay down for them and I'm going to use every tool at my disposal."

OK... just don't try to pass off sleazy tactics by the Dems as evidence of moral superiorty. As one committed to democratic principles not the Democratic Party, I won't let you get away with it.

At SOME point Democrats need to realize that there's another enemy is besides the GOP... it's our dysfunctional political system. Dems spend more time trying to game this system than reform it.

[DaveinMD]

23. that's crap

this is the attitude that lost us this election. And the Dems have never redistricting aside from the normal time its done. If we don't fight back hard, our country will be gone forever. The other side is not playing around. Want to get rid of gerrymandering, fine. Pass ballot initiatives that do so. But the party cannot disengage from these tactics or we'll never have any chance of competing nationally ever again. Its that simple.

[ulTRAX]

25. what's crap?

DaveinMD wrote: "that's crap this is the attitude that lost us this election. And the Dems have never redistricting aside from the normal time its done. If we don't fight back hard, our country will be gone forever. The other side is not playing around. Want to get rid of gerrymandering, fine. Pass ballot initiatives that do so. But the party cannot disengage from these tactics or we'll never have any chance of competing nationally ever again. Its that simple."

What's "crap"? I made numerous points...

As for losing this nation... I've been arguing here it's the LACK of principle on the part of Dems that costing them elections.

And you actually believe MORE sleaze is the answer? That is truly disturbing and goes along way to prove my point that Dems are morally bankrupt.

I think more TRUTH from our candidates is the answer.

[DaveinMD]

28. the answer is fighting fire with fire

we need to put them on the defensive by using every tool at our disposal to win. We can't be afraid of negative campaigning. Gerrymandering is not sleazy. The way the Republicans did it was completely outside of the normal practice in American politics. But Democrats are too afraid to fight, so we lose. We can't be afraid of the fight or think we are above that fight. The fight is how you win.

[ulTRAX]

33. of all the weapons in your arsenal

DaveinMD wrote: "the answer is fighting fire with fire. we need to put them on the defensive by using every tool at our disposal to win. We can't be afraid of negative campaigning. Gerrymandering is not sleazy. The way the Republicans did it was completely outside of the normal practice in American politics. But Democrats are too afraid to fight, so we lose. We can't be afraid of the fight or think we are above that fight. The fight is how you win."

It's interesting that of all the weapons in your arsenal... a faith in truth and democratic principles are nowhere to be found.

[DaveinMD]

34. truth is great

our principles are great. They still need to be part of coherent, disciplined message. And you have to be tough and willing to criticize the other side for what they are doing wrong.

When I ran the coordinated campaign in my home county a few years back, we were able to win because we continually highlighted three crucial things that our opponent was wrong on and we did not shy away from this criticism the entire campaign. We turned a 10 point deficit into a 10 point win. There is a lesson there. Be true to your principles, but you need to be willing to get your hands dirty in order to win.

[tx_dem41]

7. How can you claim the districts were gerrymandered...

when those same districts individually matched the percentages for the overall state in favor of Bush? In other words, many districts voted for Bush AND at the same time voted for a Democratic rep?

Please, a little homework is all we ask for.

[ulTRAX]

20. I was just quoting.....

I was originally just quoting a rather distinguished political science professor at Yale. Perhaps you might ask him to do HIS homework.

As for your comments about Bush... are you referring to his run for governor or president? Common now... you're asking me to be precise.

If it's the latter, then I already addressed this point. If Texas was moving more and more toward the GOP in the late 90's... that's hardly proof the Dems didn't Gerrymander in 1990. Then there's the favorite son factor.

[dogman]

10. Yet we are told to accept that Dems voted for Bush?

Texas was not so GOP before that. The principe of waiting for census results is because that is when the state 's allottment of Reps is determined. The use of corporate funds in state politics in Texas was illegal. Several of his associates have already been convicted. What he did was politically unethical and I suppose anything can be justified but how it was done was illegal and if he can be tied to that he might go to jail. That's what's sleazier than the Dems. Gerrymandering is almost as old as our government and that's why the courts become involved. Breaking the law is not the best method to achieve your perception of what's fair.

[okieinpain]

19. yeah, but the way I understand it. the courts redraw the districts

in the repugs favor, but it wasn't enough for delay. that's completely different from what the dems did.

[Yupster]

36. Agree ultrax

With computers as good as they are, it's time to end gerrymandering.

Just tell the computer to divide the population into X number of groupings in asa compact a way as possible. The computer does it and no one complains.

We'd need voting rights waivers though.

[ulTRAX]

52. computers are the problem

There now exists software that can look at historical voting patterns right down to the ward/precinct level and like a spreadsheet be used to mix and match precincts to create safe districts for incumbents while splitting up big voting blocks for the other party. Yet I think having representation for local issues is desirable. So perhaps the only fix is to move to multi-district elections.

[Slickriddles]

120. I don't know that gerrymandering is immoral

It's actually a very common practice and is perhaps unethical and illegal if done too frequently. The consequence is for seats in the House to be very, very secure. I live in a distict that makes no sense whatsoever until you realize that it is an attempt to put all the Democrats from 5 counties into one district. There's even a hilarious little tail that extends into the next county so as to include a major university town. But I don't think it's immoral.

[Hippo_Tron]

21. Seriously, Illinois has a GOP majority in its congressional delegation

You don't see the democratic dominated government drawing Hastert out of his seat.

[TedsGarage]

31. Not anymore we don't

Since Melissa Bean beat Phil Crane, our delegation is 10-9 in favor of the Dems.

[Hippo_Tron]

81. Didn't know that, still it's definately not proportional...

Considering the margin that Kerry won Illinois by and how you have democrats in basically every statewide elected office.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulTRAX]

14. nice try, no cigar

According to http://www.polidata.us/pub/reports/489292a.pdf in the 1992 election... which may not be representative because of Perot... your theory accounts for 5 districts, with one going the other way.

So even with your 4 added districts... that still would give the Dems 17 to the GOP 13 yet each were getting 50% of the Congressional vote. Also, in every district there's more votes for president than congress... in one distict TEXARKANA/MARSHALL almost 70,000.

So unless you have better data yourself, color me unimpressed.

[tx_dem41]

15. As you admit...1992 is a horrible year to use especially ...since

Perot was from Texas. And you knew that.

BTW, if you look at the end of the decade, the Texas representation magically gets to your ideal numbers. Problem solved.

Please, try harder next time.

[ulTRAX]

17. you're not making your case

If 1992 is not repesentitive... then we should look at 1994.

You claim that because Texas increasingly voted GOP toward the end of the decade absolves Texas Dems of Gerrymandering doesn't really prove anything. Texas was moving further into the GOP camp anyway... true?

[tx_dem41]

44. Yet those same "gerrymandered" districts were voting

proportionately "within" the bounds (save 1992) in the presidential races...why? I thought they were "gerrymandered"?

[ulTRAX]

69. if you ignore 1992

If you ignore 1992 that leaves 1996 as the only other presidential election year before the 2000 census. It's also 6 years further into the trend for Texas voting more to the Right. So what's your point?

In the end... the simple fact remains that we're looking at the CONGRESSIONAL races not the presidential race... and in 1992 the Dems got 70% of the seats with only 50% of the vote.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulTRAX]

22. before you call me simplistic..........

My post was mainly about the 1990 redistricting. Try again Einstein.

[Yupster]

38. How could the legislature redistrict

if the senate didn't agree?

Doesn't the senate have to agree for the legislature to do anything?

[DaveinMD]

40. the state senate is part of the legislature

its one of two houses. One is the house of representatives or deleages and the other is the state senate.

[punpirate]

13. In addition to all else said...

... let us also remember that redistricting after 2000 was thrown into the courts because the Texas legislature could not decide in 2001 and would not meet again until 2003. A general election was coming up in 2002, and the courts had to step in.

DeLay, therefore, must have orchestrated this redistricting to undo the actions of the court.

By your logic, DeLay was undoing the federal court's attempt at gerrymandering.

Only two things are possible, given the evidence. The federal court gerrymandered districts in the Democrats' favor, or, DeLay decided he had enough power to influence the state legislature to gerrymander on behalf of Republicans. Which do you think is more likely?

[ulTRAX]

16. you're ignoring 1990 redistricting

punpirate wrote: "Only two things are possible, given the evidence. The federal court gerrymandered districts in the Democrats' favor, or, DeLay decided he had enough power to influence the state legislature to gerrymander on behalf of Republicans. Which do you think is more likely?"

Since I started by discussing the 1990 redistricting, it's odd that you're not even mentioning that.

I certainly don't trust DeLay... but then Dems like Traficant and Dan Rostinkowski prove that Dems have no monopoly on virtue.

Gerrymandering is a common tactic used by the Party in power to give itself an unfair advantage. Why are Texas Dems immune? But it's an anti-democratic practice. It should not be condoned by any party.

[punpirate]

27. No, your real topic was the possibility...

... that DeLay was rectifying gerrymandering done by the Democrats. If the 2000 redistricting was done by the federal courts, then your point about the 1990 redistricting is moot.

You're also looking at the 1990 redistricting results in isolation. Texas has not always been politically what it is now. It has traditionally been "yellow-dog" Democratic until the 2002 election, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of the state legislature. Texas has been, until recently, conservatively Democratic. It's quite reasonable that, in 1992, Democrats would have won by slim margins in a large number of Texas US Representative races.

Beyond that, any expert on redistricting will tell you that the object of the process is to make geographically coherent districts based on population. The DeLay plan, in contravention of the federal court's wishes, created absurd geographic boundaries to compress and isolate Democrats and to pit Democrats against each other. It was a classic case of gerrymandering for strictly political effect. Suggesting that DeLay was just giving the Democrats some of their own medicine ignores the court redistricting done in 2001.

[ulTRAX]

32. you confuse an introduction with the topic

punpirate wrote: "No, your real topic was the possibility that DeLay was rectifying gerrymandering done by the Democrats."

No... my point was that given the 1990 redistricting that seems to have been an example of Democratic Gerrymandering... that perhaps the Dems were being hypocritical when the GOP resorted to the same.

"If the 2000 redistricting was done by the federal courts, then your point about the 1990 redistricting is moot."

Actually... 1990 stands alone. Why does something that happened 10 years later absolve the Dems from charges of Gerrymandering? Will a Dem takeover in 2010 absolve DeLay? Didn't think so.

"You're also looking at the 1990 redistricting results in isolation. Texas has not always been politically what it is now."

No... I bet there's been a battle over districts since Texas became a state. But as someone more interested in defending democratic principles than defending the Democratic Party... I reserve the right to cry foul or hypocrisy whoever does it.

"It has traditionally been "yellow-dog" Democratic until the 2002 election, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of the state legislature. Texas has been, until recently, conservatively Democratic. It's quite reasonable that, in 1992, Democrats would have won by slim margins in a large number of Texas US Representative races."

I know... Texas Dems are really GOPers. Yet if true then there's something radically wrong with a districting scheme that gives 70% of the seats to a party that only gets 50% of the votes. Don't you think?

[punpirate]

35. On your last point...

... no, you're using sophistry to say that a 70% percent vote for Democrats is impossible with a 2 and change percent difference in the popular vote by party. Do the math. It's not only possible, but likely in a state that voted Democratic. It simply means that quite a few Democrats won by slimmer margins than blowouts.

Have you compared Texas against all other states in the same way in the 1992 election? You're saying that Texas was an extraordinary example of Democratic gerrymandering, and yet, have no proof other than the popular vote for the state as a whole, which proves, effectively, nothing with regard to individual races in the state.

After all, the House was Democratically-controlled for four decades prior to the so-called Gingrich revolution, which occurred in 1994. Even though the 1990 redistricting prevailed through the following decade, Texas Republicans made incremental gains in the House. By your logic, that could not have occurred because of Democratic skulduggery. In fact, it reflected changes in the state's politics.

One election does not a general case make--that's what I mean by looking at it in isolation.

[DaveinMD]

29. 1990 redistricting

it was done when prescribed. Not some other random year when it was convenient.

[Andromeda]

37. Why are you harping on this now?

1990 was fifteen years ago and is hardly relevant to what's happening in 2005.

In other words, who cares! I couldn't give a rat's ass about what happened in Texas because Texas is unique in that politics has a checkered history on both sides of the aisle.

That hardly makes Democrats as bad or evil as Republicans in any way shape or form. Democrats are just too damn nice for their own good and the reason they have been losing elections is because they do have principles.

That doesn't mean Dems are all goody-two-shoes but if they do get caught doing something they shouldn't do they're usually dealt with more harshly that Republicans are.

Republican hypocrisy permeates all corners of national politics but don't expect anybody to be charged with any kind of crime anytime soon.

If Democrats had played Republicans at their own game -- consistently -- we wouldn't be the minority party right now.

And don't bring up pariahs like Traficant and Rostinkowski as examples of typical Democratic party representatives. Most of our representatives conduct themselves ethically but there are always a few who will sully the reputation of the party.

Traficant is in jail and Rostinkowski was dishonored and dealt with.

Tom DeLay has never been punished for any illegal thing he has ever done and there have been plenty. He has gotten away with all of his sleazy tricks. I don't recall any Democrat who has gotten away with the things DeLay has.

[ulTRAX]

54. context

Andromeda wrote: Why are you harping on this now? 1990 was fifteen years ago and is hardly relevant to what's happening in 2005.

In other words, who cares! I couldn't give a rat's ass about what happened in Texas because Texas is unique in that politics has a checkered history on both sides of the aisle."

I just tire of political partisans who demonize one side and cast a blind eye to the transgressions of their own Party. All I was doing was providing some context to the Texas saga. If you have problems with the facts... then it the facts are not the problem.

[DaveinMD]

63. the poster you responded to

doesn't have problems with the facts. You do. The fact is what Republicans in Texas did has never been done before. They tried it in Colorado too, but the State Supreme Court threw it out. Redistricting after the state was already redistricted is unprecendented in American politics.

[ulTRAX]

68. the facts are........

The fact is BOTH sides are sleazy... but you're determined to find some way to excuse Dems in 1990 and focus all blame on GOPers on 2004. That DeLay is a sleaze makes this game all the easier to cast a blind eye to what the Dems did.

I'm sure you see this hypocrisy as a shining example of the moral superiority of the Dems.

[DaveinMD]

70. what are you talking about

Dems drew districts in the year that they were supposed to do so. Delay drew districts when they had the power to do so. What they did has never been done before in American politics. What you propose is for Democrats to stop gerrymandering, while Republicans continue to do so. Don't you understand what that would mean. Let me tell you. It would mean Democrats would have no chance of ever regaining control of congress. Its that simple. Unilateral disarmament would mean the death of the Democratic party. Maybe Democrats should abide by strict spending limits too even without campaign finance reform.

[ulTRAX]

94. you're blind to the possibility........

Some will always be blind to the possibility that the REAL problem with the Democrats is they have no vision to sell to the American People.

So are you suggesting that the Dems need not do the soul searching to reinvent their party. They should just try to steal seats though sleaze?

So tell me.... when it comes to sleaze, just where do YOU draw the line? If Gerymandering doesn't cut it... do you move on to voter fraud?

[DaveinMD]

109. you really have no concept how politics works

The Democratic party needs greater discipline in message. The Democratic party needs to do a better job in many ways. One of those is to be tougher. Its not to leave the battlefield as you suggest. If you have no stomach for the fight, you should look away and find other things to do.

[Melissa G]

134. WERE you THERE ulTRAX?

'cause I was and this looks like bs not context.

[TankLV]

122. Again, for the intellectually challenged: Redistricting occurs once every

10 years.

The Texas districts were already altered in 1990 and 2000 - which is exactly what has gone on all times before.

What is so illegal here is that after the repukes won more seats again AFTER the 2000 redistricting, the delay changed them a SECOND TIME - up until which time WAS NEVER DONE BEFORE ANYWHERE!

Got it now?

It's not the "gerrymandering" intself that is the sleeze - it's that the repukes successfully did it A SECOND TIME!

[DaveinMD]

135. thank you very much

The originator of this thread just doesn't get it.

[eallen]

24. Absolutely! Neither major party wants reform that threatens two party lock

There is a well-known solution to gerrymandering and politicians who don't represent their constituencies: proportional representation. Draw large districts -- the boundaries no longer matter so much -- and use some version of PR to elect five representatives in each district.

The truth is that neither major party will support this, because it opens the door for third parties, and for representatives who run simply as independents. The two-party system is a direct result of geographically apportioned, winner-take-all elections. Both the Democrats and Republicans have an inherent organizational interest in maintaining that system. So they gerrymander when they are in power, bitch about it when they are out of power, and oppose as a matter of course any systemic reform that will change the system.

[ulTRAX]

26. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's rather scandalous that the Dems spend more time trying to game a dysfunctional electoral system than promoting progressive change. As a Progressive I resent the Dems for standing in the way of the progressive reforms I'd like to see.

[Texas_Kat]

41. It's a good thing you're not teaching anyone political science

... but I'll note right here you're using Delay's talking points.

Just FYI, what Delay did was re-apportion the Texas congressional seats even after the districts had already been determined for this Census once.

(You should look at 2000 and 2002 data, not data that is 12 years old).

Texas Repubs tend to congregate in upper-middle income suburbs around the major metro areas and in west Texas.

What Delay did was combine 2 (or more) Democrats into single districts. The Texas Congressional delegation has historically been Democratic (yes, over the years we had an opportunity to pull what Delay did, but chose not to). For instance, Travis county (Austin) is now split into 3 congressional districts (one runs south to the border, one that runs east to Houston and one that takes in a portion of Lloyd Doggett's district.

Each is a district that runs several hundred miles. Delay is a criminal and the Travis county grand jury is on his trail.

[NV Whino]

42. You Texas folks are more on top of this than I am, but

in a nutshell, the "redistricting" was done out of the legal time period. That is the key. Dem, repub, doesn't matter. Redistricting is done EVERY TEN YEARS AFTER A CENSUS. Anything else is illegal. Period.

[DaveinMD]

43. that is the main point

I'm all for getting politicians out the redistricting game, but that's a different issue. What Delay did was wrong and he used taxpayer dollars to do it. He belongs in prison.

[eallen]

45. Can you point to the law that makes it illegal?

Because there are tens of thousands of people in what used to be my district who would love to take that issue to court. The problem is, there is a difference between just saying that something is "illegal, period," and actually being able to argue that, based on statutory and case law.

[DebinTx]

47. There is no law making what DeLay did illegal

Because the law says that the legislature will redraw the disctricts after the census, and since they didn't but the court did (2 republican and 1 democrat judge, btw) that allowed DeLay the backdoor entry to redraw them.
I am in a new district that runs between Houston to Austin - I've never seen, heard, or read anything by my new republican congressman. Since the lines were redrawn so late, there was no democratic candidate.

[ChickMagic]

48. What you're saying is true

Plus, redistricting must be done according to population - NOT political preference as the Pugs claim.

[ulTRAX]

55. have a cite?

Federal reapportionment of districts is done every ten years based on the decennial census. House districts within a state are probably also based upon that census. But within a state... the inclusion of voting patterns and voting registration is a state concern though sometimes the federal courts supervise the process.

What DeLay did raises many issues.... the first whether there is any law to prevent states from redistricting between censuses. Have a legal cite? The other issue is whether DeLay broke laws trying to pursue a possibly legal option.

But the REAL issue here is not DeLay but Gerrymandering by BOTH parties. Political partisans have this uncanny knack for ignoring the faults of their side and always point the finger at the other Party.

I think sleaze is sleaze regardless of who does it.

[DaveinMD]

60. So

Democrats should stop gerrymandering while Republicans continue the practice. Under your logic, we'll have 10 members of congress. Politics is war. You don't disarm unilaterally unless you want to get killed.

[ulTRAX]

53. my concern is fair representation

And our system... from the two party system, to the House, to the Senate to the EC... is too deeply flawed to produce it. I'd just like to see the Democrats spending time trying to reform the system instead of trying to game it... thereby perpetuating it.

[Bridget Burke]

46. Yes, the party in power tends to want to stay in power.

But what Tom DeLay did (with the help of Governor Good Hair) was way out of line.

[ulTRAX]

51. I think the real problem is

I think the real issue is not Texas Dems or DeLay... but a dysfunctional voting/political system. On every level of federal government such vote weighing and voter disenfranchisement schemes are the norm... from Gerrymandering House districts... to the Senate where 15% of the population now gets 50% of the seats... to the EC where election losers routinely are imposed upon the nation.

Wouldn't it be nice for the Democrats to stop trying to game this dysfunctional and anti-democratic system and finally work to reform it?

[lastliberalintexas]

57. Wouldn't it be nice to simply say that

rather than starting this thread attacking people who are to the left of DeLay's Huns and who do advance at least some progressive causes? But I guess you wouldn't get a flame war if you merely started a thread advocating proportional representation of instant run off voting. :shrug:

[ulTRAX]

73. except that

astliberalintexas wrote: "Wouldn't it be nice to simply say that rather than starting this thread attacking people who are to the left of DeLay's Huns and who do advance at least some progressive causes?"

So if Dems are the lesser of the evils... we should ignore the evil?

"But I guess you wouldn't get a flame war if you merely started a thread advocating proportional representation of instant run off voting. :shrug:"

I've brought up proportional representation in other threads until I'm blue in the face. What's the point of bringing those topics up if I'd have to hide a prime example of why we need such reforms?

I think the problem is political partisans put Party before principle and I try do the opposite. So if speaking out for principle is in your opinion starting a flame war... perhaps the real problem is with the intolerance of partisans who are determined to conceal their party's misdeeds and demonize the other side.

[DaedelusNemo]

80. One principle to live by is to think of the consequences of your actions

You could equivalently say "The democratic representatives should all refuse to be part of a corrupt system and all quit."

It might seem an admirable thing, but net effect in almost all cases is to increase corruption.

Anyway, given that gerrymandering is indeed sleazy (even if it has been going on throughout our history), to call the dems and Delay equally sleazy is to completely ignore many of Delay's actions that i cannot believe you would consider principled.

[lastliberalintexas]

86. Where did I say anything

about ignoring the problems of the Democratic party? No party organization is perfect and they should ALL be called on their abuses. But you could have made this argument in a *much* more fruitful way, rather than attacking a group of people who've been through hell for the last 10 years.

Think being a Dem/liberal/progressive in Bush's America is bad? Try being one in Texas.

[Bridget Burke]

62. The issue of this thread--started by you--

Is Texas Democrats & Tom DeLay.

With whom, pray tell, should Texas Democrats work to reform the system? Which Republicans?

[Bouncy Ball]

49. Thanks for repeating repuke talking points in here.

ARE you a Naderite?

[ulTRAX]

50. am I a Naderite?

I was in 96 and 2000. This time I held my nose and voted Kerry... someone I stopped voting for as Senator since he supported NAFTA.

[Nederland]

56. Excellent

This is an excellent case for bipartisan reform. We should push for national standards that call for districts to be draw by independant, bipartisan groups as its done in Iowa. The problem is, policians of both parties will oppose it, which IMHO is proof positive that its a good idea.

[DaveinMD]

61. in the current environment

I think Dems would support such a move if done on a national scale, but not just in Democratic leaning states.

[MisterLiberal]

58. Aw, poor babies

Who came up with the idea that we have to stand for something that is counter to our own best interests? Seriously! Just think about it; why would we favor redistricting if it harms us politically?

Is that what you're suggesting we do?

OF COURSE we favor it when it's in our best interests!

DUH!!!!

[MisterLiberal]

59. Oh one more thing

We reserve the right to make whatever changes WE feel are necessary, not those the Repugs want us to make.

That would be like letting the other football coach tell us what plays we make because of plays we made last time we played them!

Makes no sense!

[ulTRAX]

71. I can't expect.......

MisterLiberal wrote: "Aw, poor babies. Who came up with the idea that we have to stand for something that is counter to our own best interests? Seriously! Just think about it; why would we favor redistricting if it harms us politically? Is that what you're suggesting we do? OF COURSE we favor it when it's in our best interests! DUH!!!!"

I can't expect someone devoid of principles to understand why they are important.... or why it's better to try to reform a corrupt and dysfunctional system then to perpetuate it by joining in on the corruption. Those people will just have to figure it out for themselves.

[MisterLiberal]

89. You want to be principal?

Go to school.

We're here to school the Republicans and by Odin, if I've got a third arm, it may look freaky as hell, but I'm not sawing it off when I enter a boxing match just so you feel better about it.

Corrupt? LOL! Politics is always corrupt! That's why you pick up whatever's near you and start swinging and as long as its legal, don't cry about it.

Let me ask you this Ultrax; would you complain if the Democrats got control again and redistricted so we got control of the House again?

I bet you would.

[fob]

65. "70% of the seats with only 50% of the vote?" Is that so unusual?

Are you saying that the 1990 redistricting is the ONLY way to win 70% of the seats with 50.2% of the vote? What about the "It's time for a change, enough of bush/reagan/republicans" feeling that was a big factor in the 92 vote.



I did the same exercise with the 2002 vote from same site
http://www.polidata.us/pub/reports/48a0a2a.pdf

DEM-----2432260------45%-----17 (53%)
rep-----3799170------54%-----15 (47%)

I left off Other because the Total Vote column from the data excluded them too.

To compare with ultrax's directly;

DEM-----2432260------44%-----17 (53%) (5 seats won Unopposed)
rep-----3799170------53%-----15 (47%) (4 seats won Unopposed)
OTH----- 119251------ 3%

So 10 years later;

Dem's lose 10%(From 50% to 45%) of their vote total percentage but lose 20% of their seats (21 to 17)

rep's gain 12% (From 48% to 54%) of their vote total percentage but gain 66% of their seats (9 to 15)!

Is that solely due to redistricting?

[ulTRAX]

67. interesting math

fob wrote: "So 10 years later;

Dem's lose 10%(From 50% to 45%) of their vote total percentage but lose 20% of their seats (21 to 17)

rep's gain 12% (From 48% to 54%) of their vote total percentage but gain 66% of their seats (9 to 15)!

Is that solely due to redistricting?"

Since the issue I was raising was the Dem's 1990 redistricting scheme... I presented the numbers there. I haven't presented any others so what happened in 2000 or after is not really the topic of this thread.

So was your exercise trying to "prove" that the Dem DIDN'T Gerrymander in 1990? Or divert attention from it?

BTW... your use of percentage figures is confusing. It reminds me of how the Right tried to prove there was a revenue boom under Reagan. They didn't compare post ERTA revenues to revenues under Carter... in which case there was a clear drop of revenues for several years. They used a depressed baseline where the revenues could only go up. Poof! Instant revenue boom.

So despite your implication that if the Dems were being treated unfairly in 2002.... the ratio of Democratic votes to wins is much more equitable than the 1992 result.

In the end it's the system that is the real problem. But as long as people try to game it rather than reform it... it just sets everyone up to be hypocritical.

[fob]

91. I'll answer your questions, and hopefully you will answer mine

Since the issue I was raising was the Dem's 1990 redistricting scheme... I presented the numbers there. I haven't presented any others so what happened in 2000 or after is not really the topic of this thread.

I understand your issue. What I wanted to check was would your analysis of the one point in time stand up with subsequent data. And while you say what happened in 2000 or after is not really the topic the examination of 2000 and beyond may or may not reveal 1990 to be more/less valid.

So was your exercise trying to "prove" that the Dem DIDN'T Gerrymander in 1990? Or divert attention from it?

Neither. You simply implied that the percent of votes received in a particular election could/should be tied to the RESULTS (how many seats won) for that election. I saw no proof presented that Democrats(or anyone) gerrymandered anything in 1990. You seemed to take your results, 50.2% of the vote resulting in 70% of the seats and conclude that gerrymandering must have occured for that to happen. You imply that gerrymandering is/was the only reason for your results. How many seats did the Dems have prior to the election? Was the final tally, 21 Dems and 9 repukes a move UP or Down for the Dems? My exercise was to ask for further analysis.


BTW... your use of percentage figures is confusing.

What has you confused? Are you saying my numbers are wrong? Granted I did round the numbers to nearest whole percents but they are still good for the level of accuracy for this debate.

Maybe you object to my equating the percentage of vote change from 2002 to 1990 to the number of seats changed for the same periods? I think that's at least as valid as your tying vote percentage to number of seats earned, wait that's the same thing, can't be that!

[fob]

93. continued - maxed out on last post!

So despite your implication that if the Dems were being treated unfairly in 2002.... the ratio of Democratic votes to wins is much more equitable than the 1992 result.

Huh? I implied the Dems were being treated unfairly? I'll have to re-read my op and check back. OK, nope, I don't see where I implied that. As for the ratio of Democratic votes to Seats won being more equitable than 1992, I don't see that either. There total number of votes was only 10% less in 2002 but they lost 20% of their seats! The repukes gained 12% more votes in 2002 than 1992 but gained 66% more seats!


The basic question I have is was there a redistricting after the 2000 census but BEFORE the 2002 election? If not then the 2002 electionwas still using the same boundaries as the 1992 election you claim show DEM BIAS, yet 10 years later somehow produces repuke bias. If there was redistricting then it was clearly repuke-favorable according to your system for determining bias (ie Seats won disproportionate to percent of Votes received).

So what I'd like to see from you are the numbers from the election after the redistricting most closely following the 1980 census.

PS - I reread some of my original questions and I could see where they may read as more smartassy than intended. My point of these threads are all serious, the questions serious and are mainly to challenge your assertion. If it stands then fine, if not then a rethink is in order on your part.

Thanks

[ulTRAX]

105. here's an experiment

fob wrote: "I understand your issue. What I wanted to check was would your analysis of the one point in time stand up with subsequent data. And while you say what happened in 2000 or after is not really the topic the examination of 2000 and beyond may or may not reveal 1990 to be more/less valid."

There are some trends in Texas politics that confuse comparisons with other years. For example there's the trend to the Right... and any favorite son effect in the 2000 election. Getting into 2002 and that's after another redistricting. Since the 1990/1991 redistricting is the crucial variable, I think comparing the last election before redistricting and first post-redistricting election might be preferable to looking at 2002. But what if the 1980 redistricting plan was also Gerrymandered? So the key would be looking for the percentage of statewide party votes compared to seats won.

fob: Neither. You simply implied that the percent of votes received in a particular election could/should be tied to the RESULTS (how many seats won) for that election. I saw no proof presented that Democrats(or anyone) gerrymandered anything in 1990. You seemed to take your results, 50.2% of the vote resulting in 70% of the seats and conclude that gerrymandering must have occurred for that to happen. You imply that gerrymandering is/was the only reason for your results."

I thought I was clear that I first learned about what happened in Texas from a book. I'm assuming the author, Robert Dahl knew what he was talking about when he brought up this example. After seeing the actual voting figures, I agree with his assessment that the 1990 plan in Texas was an extreme case of Gerrymandering on the part of the Dems. Does this come as any surprise? Right after the 1990 census there were plenty of reports of state legislatures moving to rig the districts.

fob: What has you confused? Are you saying my numbers are wrong? Granted I did round the numbers to nearest whole percents but they are still good for the level of accuracy for this debate.

You're playing a numbers game. You worked from a baseline that was unfair to begin with (1992 election results) and even though the 2002 election a movement was toward more proportionality, you find a way a way to make the Dems look like the victims. It's a classic example of figures don't lie but some can sure be misleading.

[Vinnie From Indy]

66. We should have never stolen Texas from Mexico! n/t

[NoPasaran]

83. You didn't

Texans won their independence from Mexico in 1836 and were annexed a decade later. If you want to give someplace "back to Mexico", a much better case could be made for Caifornia.

[Vinnie From Indy]

98. LOL I stand Corrected

Well, I am sure we stole it from somebody and we shouldn't have!

[txaslftist]

72. What a crock of Naderite BS

Trying to adhere to some principle that the law does not require and that the other side patently ignores so we can lose more seats 'but hold on to our -ie, Ralph Nader's- principles'.

Wake up. You ain't in Texas, you probably ain't from Texas so you don't get it. Attack from ambush has a long and distinguished history here.

You don't take a knife to a gunfight, idjit.

[ulTRAX]

74. translation

txaslftist wrote: "What a crock of Naderite BS. Trying to adhere to some principle that the law does not require and that the other side patently ignores so we can lose more seats 'but hold on to our -ie, Ralph Nader's- principles'. Wake up. You ain't in Texas, you probably ain't from Texas so you don't get it. Attack from ambush has a long and distinguished history here. You don't take a knife to a gunfight, idjit."

Translation: you're glad Dems stole seats in Texas by Gerrymandering the state in 1990.

Isn't that easier to say?

[DaveinMD]

75. or maybe it simpler for you to say

the Democratic party should just hand over 90 percent of congressional seats to Republicans. Isn't that much easier to say?

[txaslftist]

76. Thank ya, Dave.

[DaveinMD]

77. no problem

I'm not going down without a fight.

[ulTRAX]

85. of the two of us

Let's be fair Dave... of the two of us only YOU have defended a system that will give one party more seats than it gets in total votes.

I'm on record being opposed to Gerrymandering and any other vote weighing scheme. I'm also on record for proportional representation.

So PLEASE don't pretend that sleaze in the service of the Dems is more honorable that sleaze in service of the GOP. A pox on all such hypocrites.

[DaveinMD]

110. I'm not going to unilaterally disarm

if you want to reform the way elections work, great. Go to work and get those things on the ballot. I'll most likely fully support them. You won't get the same from the other side.

[MisterLiberal]

78. Yes

It is quite easy for me to say, and yes, I live in Texas.

We should use any and all political methods at our disposal. If we fail to do so, we will FAIL!

[ulTRAX]

88. Oh... I get it now!!!!!

MisterLiberal wrote: "Yes It is quite easy for me to say, and yes, I live in Texas. We should use any and all political methods at our disposal. If we fail to do so, we will FAIL!"

Some will always be blind to the possibility that the REAL problem with the Democrats is they have no vision to sell to the American People.

So are you suggesting that the Dems need not do the soul searching to reinvent their party. They should just try to steal seats though sleaze?

So tell me.... when it comes to sleaze, just where do YOU draw the line? If Gerymandering doesn't cut it... do you move on to voter fraud?

[MisterLiberal]

You sit at home and think about visions

the rest of us will do the dirty work.

Man, I feel like Nicholson.

True or false; what we did was legal????

That's the beauty of the system; we can appeal to people like you by concentrating on the Repugs doing it!

Soul searching got us in trouble in the first place. Too much thinking and wondering. If you don't know who you are by now, you shouldn't have a place in politics!

[Slickriddles]

129. Gettin' Deja Vu here n/t

[MisterLiberal]

79. It's NOT stealing, either!

It's a legal procedure, plain and simple! You make it sound like bank robbery or something.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't ALSO use political pressure to make them look unfair doing it, though.

We use it ALL, baby, every legal trick in the book and we will WIN!

The Repugs aren't tying their hands and you come in here and ask us to tie OURS?

Get real; the national party needs to learn from the Texas Reps and if there is a vote that is going bad, they need to ditch Washington as a protest, if nothing else.

USE THE MEDIA!

[txaslftist]

82. YEEEHAW....

That's our battle cry!

[MisterLiberal]

84. Out of curiosity

How does a thread calling Democrats "sleazy" get on this board?

Damn freepers.

[txaslftist]

87. No kidding...

I alerted, but its still here.

[ulTRAX]

90. please learn to read

Me a freeper? Ha! Though I have my suspicions about any newcomers that jump into a debate as you have.

But since you seem to have problems with interpreting the written word... the subject acknowledges DeLay as sleazy. It only poses the question whether the Dems in 1990 were equally so.

[MisterLiberal]

95. Not a freeper?

Then post this crap on their forums.

They're the VALUES people, remember?

Your strong points should put them in an emotional coma, thereby shutting down the whole Republican Party!

...or not, what do you think?

I think that if we volunteer to restrict ourselves from all of the tools at our disposal that we are just asking to lose.

[TankLV]

125. If it walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck , & looks like a duck...

you know the rest - and the answer.

You really are almost good at what you are doing.

But WE all can see WHAT YOU ARE DOING.

AND WE AIN'T BUYIN' WHAT YOU'RE SELLIN'!

[dogman]

92. Especially when the poster ignores the sleaze factor (DeLay's tactics)

and makes a case against gerrymandering which is not the reason Dems are calling DeLay sleazy. How would changing all the districts to the GOP help any Progressive movement? It's obvious that both Party's are in synch on this method to allow each other to retain power.

[ulTRAX]

97. I'm not ignoring DeLay

How could you miss it.... my very first line was: "A lot has been made about Tom DeLay's attempt to interfere with Texas redistricting in an attempt to pick up more GOP seats."

What I did was merely add historical context. But I think it's clear that some ONLY want to talk about GOP sleaze and not Dem sleaze. I'm opposed to all sleaze and can not play this hypocrite's game.

As for mid-decade redistricting. DeLay may have been first to think of it... but you can sure that Dems will soon try it too.

[MisterLiberal]

99. What you're DOING

is coming on a Democrat Board and flaming Democrats.

Your last sentence there pretty much says Dems are the same as DeLaid and if that's not enough to get you bounced from here, I don't know what is.

[ulTRAX]

102. gee... one day and you're an expert

You just registered today.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=162370
and you're the expert on this board?

My, already 25 posts. Some might think you're trying to build up a quick post count. But I'm not that suspicious.

[MisterLiberal]

107. My oh my

You never heard of lurking before?

Try to change the subject all you want, but the bottom line is that you still are attacking Democrats on a Democrat board.

I'm defending them.

Who should people be suspicious of?

[DaveinMD]

111. you are the good Democrat

We should be working to elect Democrats, not attack Democrats for using all the tools we can to win. Republicans have abused this process, not Democrats.

[ulTRAX]

113. Gee Dave

DaveinMD wrote: "you are the good Democrat. We should be working to elect Democrats, not attack Democrats for using all the tools we can to win. Republicans have abused this process, not Democrats."

Gee Dave... my whole point in this thread was to show that just because DeLay is a despicable thug doesn't mean that we should ignore what the Dems have done back in 90. Delay's doing to the Dems what they did to the GOP. It's payback. They both abused the system to deprive the other citizens of the party of representation. Trying to find some conceptual tightrope to justify one outrage while condemning another is just plain old partisan hypocrisy. The Dem Party can't reinvent itself and take the moral high ground if they get down in the gutter with the likes of DeLay.

[DaveinMD]

116. wrong

the Demcratic party redistricted at the time when the constitution said they should. They used the process to try to elect as many Democrats as possible. There nothing wrong with that. As I've said, if you want to remove politicians from this process I'm all for it. I believe commissions should do this work. But Democrats cannot disarm or our party will cease to exist. But you are not really a Democrat, so you don't care.

[MisterLiberal]

114. You go Dave

We need fighters, not referees!

[DaveinMD]

117. exactly

that's a great phrase. Fighters, not referees. I love it.

[ulTRAX]

112. what next... Dem Brown Shirts?

MisterLiberal wrote: "Try to change the subject all you want,"

Duh Einstein. I started this thread so I know what the topic is and who's changing the subject.

" but the bottom line is that you still are attacking Democrats on a Democrat board. I'm defending them."

No... I'm attacking sleaze and you are defending it. In fact I think you're going way out of your way to give Dems a black eye by advocating they engage in all the sleaze they can. Typically someone concerned with their Party wants it to have a reputation for decency not be seen as a Dem equivalent of Bush's goon squad. Got a warehouse of brown shirts you're trying to pawn off?

[MisterLiberal]

115. Read it again

I said all LEGAL maneuvers, and yeah, if you wanna call it sleeze, go back to reading about how opponents should act in a fair fight and leave the real fighting to us.

And if you're down to Nazi insults already, you lost this one a long time ago.

What I am saying is that we should use

EVERY.
SINGLE.
LEGAL.
MANEUVER.
WE.
CAN.

There; spelled out for you even.

The Repukes are holding a gun fight and you're talking about what sword is best!

[ulTRAX]

127. did the GOP goons do anything illegal in 2000?

MisterLiberal wrote: ""Read it again. I said all LEGAL maneuvers, and yeah, if you wanna call it sleaze, go back to reading about how opponents should act in a fair fight and leave the real fighting to us. And if you're down to Nazi insults already, you lost this one a long time ago."

I'm not calling you a Nazi... though you have been calling me a freeper in some posts of yours that were nuked. Now THAT's low. I'm asking you about Brown Shirt tactics.

Surely you remember the GOP goon squad that rushed a town hall in Florida during the 2000 recount. They were certainly Brown Shirts in spirit because they were seeking to physically intimidate. But it was apparently legal. I don't recall any arrests. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So are these the sort of tactics you believe Dems should resort to atop Gerrymandering? How about voter suppression? Anything else to add to your wish list to make the Democrats resepctable?

[dogman]

104. Because the DeLay sleaze is not redistricting.

It was using underhanded and possibly outright illegal tactics to do it. That is what Dems are calling sleazy. Gerrymandering is an accepted practice if done with in legal constraints. Using corporate money in Texas state politics is illegal. UsingHomeland Security assets to track legal citizens is sleazy and likely illegal. To compare this slimeball to legal acting Dems is outright ridiculous on your part. if you seek a change in the Constitution, say so and don't characterize dems as being as sleazy as DeLay in this instance.

[ulTRAX]

123. why were the Dems really mad?

The Dems can use all of DeLay's slimy hardball tactics as cover... but what they really object to is that they were employed to push though a Gerrymandering scheme that was going to hurt them. Interestingly enough, DeLay's plan looks an awful lot like the Dem's plan of 1990 in reverse. Where the Dems were getting 70% of the seats with 50% of the votes... the GOP would be getting about 68% of the seats with about 55% of the vote.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/newthishour/stories/010604dntswredistricting.116f36e5e.html

[napi21]

96. I agree, both parties are sleeze. I would like to see

straight grids for districts in every state! There should be straight gridlines drawn to establish districts. That's the only way there can be real unbiased districting. I hate what is happening under the GOP, but I also hate that the same thing was happening under the Dem rule.

Screw them both, and make it true geometric grid lines, and let the votes fall where they may.

[lastliberalintexas]

101. You can't do that unless

the geometric grid lines also account for population density. Otherwise you've simply created an electoral college for Congressional elections, which the SC has already ruled is unconstitutional. One person, one vote.


What ultrax missed is that the gerrymandered Dem created seats of 1990 and the gerrymandered (republican, btw) federal court created seats of 2000 were far more contiguous and compact than DeLay's districts. For example, in the re-re-districting, Travis county was divided into THREE separate Congressional districts, all creating splotches which would have made any abstract painter proud. Jefferson County, a county of (probably) less than 500,000 people, was carved into 2 separate seats, just because it also votes Dem.

Courts have ruled that *political* gerrymandering of Congressional districts is legal, so both parties are free to do it. However, those districts must still be compact and contiguous and hold similar interests (yes, unfortunately all subjective criteria). That wasn't the case with the DeLay re-re-districting. Also, the Dem party has not undertaken an off year redistricting just because it was able to assume control and wholly unrelated to the Census. That is what DeLay and his cronies did.

To then compare the deeds of the 2 shows just how little s/he actually knew of the situation. And to try to say that anyone defending the Dem party was merely being a partisan was also completely off the mark.

[ulTRAX]

100. Democrats To Try DeLay Redistricting?

Gee... now Democrats are thinking of DeLay style mid-census redistricting? I await those who condemn DeLay to post their disapproval. Or suddenly is it OK? ROTF

From: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/supreme_court_gerrymandering.html

"Redistricting had always been a once-in-a-decade affair — a necessary response to population changes revealed in the decennial census. But in 2002, Colorado Republicans shocked observers by abandoning this tradition, redrawing the state's congressional districts barely a year after new districts had been adopted. Although a state court invalidated that gambit, Texas — where Republicans had just taken control of both houses of the Legislature — followed suit last year. Republicans in Georgia and Ohio have made noises about doing the same; Democrats in California, Illinois and Oklahoma have as well."

[MisterLiberal]

103. Sure, its OK

If you haven't learned by now, the goal is to WIN, not lose.

And you didn't answer my question. If you KNEW that Democratic redistricting would result in the Democrats getting control of the House again, WOULD YOU SUPPORT IT OR NOT?

YES OR NO?

THAT ANSWER will prove whose side you're on.

[ulTRAX]

106. You want to know what side I'm on?

MisterLiberal "Sure, its OK If you haven't learned by now, the goal is to WIN, not lose. And you didn't answer my question. If you KNEW that Democratic redistricting would result in the Democrats getting control of the House again, WOULD YOU SUPPORT IT OR NOT?
YES OR NO? THAT ANSWER will prove whose side you're on."

No... that only indicates the lack of one's respect for democratic principles.

Obviously, if you even are a Dem, you can not conceive that the REAL problem with the Party is that it's morally and intellectually bankrupt. It has no compelling vision to sell. So if you were truly interested in the health of the Party you'd be out trying to reinvent it instead of looking for sleazy ways to take power.

So does that answer your question Fluffy?

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ulTRAX]

118. let's put your accusation to the test

MisterLiberal wrote: "At least you're an honest freeper NO, you would NOT support the legal political maneuver of redistricting if it gave us back control of the House of Representatives????? Wow. That says a lot about you. And this isn't a democracy, Freeper; this is a political war. Once the kids grow up, they usually learn that. I know, more "soul searching" is needed. Oh, and visions, too.
Then the people will mystically be aligned with Jupiter in Uranus and vote for Democrats."

Just want to document your post should it be pulled. There's some rule about accusing others of being freepers that any lurker would know about.

If you're going to accuse me of being a freeper... put up your proof or shut TF up. I have a record here of some 1200 posts... a record going back several years on usenet... at the Kerry forum, CommonGroundCommonSense, DemsUS, Dean's DFA, and lately on DemocracyCell. My first and only post to FreepLand was nuked and I was harassed until I left CU. I'll be glad to provide links. My Progressive credentials are not in doubt and while I am currently a Democratic, I hope to remedy that soon. I'll be glad to post links to my posts... but since you have a head start to search posts here, I want to see YOUR posting history first Fluffy. Got one?

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TankLV]

128. You go Dave!

You have the energy to debate this (--). I don't have such time to waste.

Thank you for your efforts.

For all of "US".

[DaveinMD]

124. the threat needs to be out there

to keep them from doing it again. That is a key point. If they don't go nuclear, we don't go nuclear. Its that simple.

[ulTRAX]

132. please make sense

How resistant to reality can you be to make a statement like that when this whole thread was started to discuss how the DEMS in Texas went nuclear first in 1990? So by your rules... it was then OK for DeLay to do the same? Or is sleaze only justified if Dems do it?

This hypocrisy is nauseating.

Won't ANYONE stand up and say sleaze is wrong regardless of which side does it?

Oh well. Time to call it a night.

[DaveinMD]

133. Dems did not go nuclear

Dems did what is always done. They did not redistrict mid stream. You are advocating giving up and letting the Republicans have their way. That is a prescription for disaster for real Democrats. I'm going to stand and fight. I'm not going to give up as you would.

[TheFarseer]

121. It's much easier in North Dakota

I don't know why they can't just divide it up equally using county boundaries somehow and when necesary city, neighborhood and if it comes to it, straight street boundaries. If you've seen a map of Texas districts, it's completely ridiculous. There's no way you can look at that map and think that gerrymandering had nothing to do with it.

I lived in Houston until a few weeks ago but didn't live there in 1990. It was disturbing to see so many conservative/moderate democrats getting booted out of office. The whole election (including primaries) was just disturbing to see so many fundies and neocons get elected over moderates and real conservatives(who I can atleast respect even if I don't agree with them on many things)

[leesa]

126. F**k off! The Republicans are without any doubt the sleaziest, greediest

most immoral and soulless people to exist since the Nazis.

[ulTRAX]

130. Tom DeLay's plan looks like the Democrat's 1990 plan in reverse

leesa wrote: "F**k off! The Republicans are without any doubt the sleaziest, greediest most immoral and soulless people to exist since the Nazis."

I'm the last one to defend a sleaze-bag like Tom DeLay. But his plan looks like the Democrat's 1990 plan in reverse. Dems are stuck trying to find some way to criticize DeLay without having to face up to the fact they did the same thing. So they focus on corporate money, the request to Homeland Security. But even if DeLay didn't do that... the Dems would still be pissed because political partisans believe winning is more important than principle. The latter is flexible used to used disguise hypocrisy or feign indignation.

[Melissa G]

136. Clearly Lies...

TRX wrote...""I'm the last one to defend a sleaze-bag like Tom DeLay...." Clearly not since you spent all thread doing it. Clear where your loyalty and obvious admiration lies...Did I say LIES???

[Moderator]

137. I'm locking this thread

reason :

Flamebait