What's new
By:

Utah Republicans finally admit to gerrymandering during current redistricting

KatieMCR

KatieMCR

Well-Known Member
How many other fellow citizens of Utah have been following the charade of the recent redistricting taking place in Utah? The redistricting committee has been holding town halls to gain input on how to redistrict the state. The feedback given strongly favored not mixing urban rural communities in the same districts. The maps they have released are clearly aimed at gerrymandering, and have not taken into account any of the feedback provided at the town hall meetings. Well now it's been leaked that the Republicans admitted they are gerrymandering.

Utah – BREAKING: PRIDEinUtah was just informed that during a meeting with the Senate Democratic Caucus this, Republican Senator Ralph Okerlund admitted that the GOP are drawing maps designed specifically to ensure Republican victory.

In what can only be described as a moment of conscience, the Communications Director for the Senate Dems, Emily Hollingshead, tells us that Republican Senator Ralph Okerlund admitted to the Senate Democrats the reason why the Republicans are only now releasing their final congressional map (which will undoubtably pass) is that they were fighting to find a way to ensure that each of the 4 congressional seats had a 62% Republican majority of voters.

Further leaks from inside the Legislature tell us that it was a directive of the Republican National Committee that each congressional map be gerrymandered into districts ensuring Republican victory so that Democratic Congressman Jim Matheson would be unable to continue serving. So much for the dog and pony show of “public input.” The only thing that actually mattered was that they satisfied the RNC.

Source
Click to expand...

This is how the Republicans in this state plan to ensure they maintain control. This is pathetic. The districts should be drawn in a way to fairly represent the people who reside within them, be they Republican or Democrat. There is a small shred of hope in this whole mess. The current Utah Democratic chair Jim Dabakis is fighting against this gerrymandering with all his might. He is threatening to sue if the Republicans pass a map that clearly is aimed at gerrymandering. There is a legal fight ahead, and I hope that ALL citizens of Utah come out as winners.
 
Scat said:
Fixed. If Dems were in control they'd be doing the exact same crap.
Click to expand...

Yep, undoubtedly, and frankly it ticks me off as well. (I'm a fairly liberal Republican, myself. Well, liberal for Utah. ;-) ) I wonder if it would be possible to have a truly independent committee do this, kind of like the Congressional Budget Office analyzes the financial impact of laws in a nonpartisan way.
 
Some Solutions

A lottery. You go to the polling place and there's a huge tumbler filled with numbered balls. For four Congressional districts the balls will have either a one, two, three or four in the first position. For state races for senate and house, there's a second and third number one for each possible "district", equal numbers of balls with numbers for each possibility. This process would be almost as random as how people choose where they live. Shame on all those narrow-minded folks who try to load up a voting district with their own kind of people. It would prevent local interests from influencing state legislative issues, too. Shame on locals wanting to have some kind of disproportionate influence of state issues.

Or, maybe, get a bamboon from the zoo, give him a map of the state, and let him tear it up. Get a balance and take the scraps and randomly add them to the balance until to get to the weight of one fourth of the map. It would look like a mess, but hey, who's pretending what we have isn't a mess already.

Or just divide up the population with a fixed requirement that the final result have equal population and is defined by an absolute minimum possible boundary length. In a state like ours the boundaries would converge on the center point of the population distribution, Salt Lake County, and each district would have some part of it. But it would not have Ogden and Price and Salt Lake City in one district, and the dems would probably have to actually start considering representing what most people in this State want.

Oh, the pain.
 
What on earth do they have to lose? It's not like Joe Tractor is ever going to vote for pinko homosexual lovers.
 
And "meh, the other side would've done it too." cannot be less substantiated, lazy, or frankly ****ty.

Whatever. (R)ock on.
 
NUMBERICA said:
What on earth do they have to lose? It's not like Joe Tractor is ever going to vote for pinko homosexual lovers.
Click to expand...

I feel your pain.

The question in it's most enlightening form, is "What do they have to gain?".

The forms of government which are essentially cast as fixed ideological "causes" where the winner takes all, are not actually representative republics. Maybe, arguably, they are democracies, but I reject that simplification because the fundamental premise of democracy is that the governance is derived from people, not imposed on people. No King making decrees, no tyrant with jackbooted thugs, but something that even if a majority "takes all" in the decision-making process, there is always the possibility that people will reconsider things when they see how things are going wrong.

The most pragmatic sort of politicians keep their wetted pinky in the wind to get a clue as to which way opinion is moving, and they do what the people want.

Progressive foot-soldiers marching for their special causes are fundamentally missing the point when they seek to impose some kind of "political correctness" on people. They are mimicking the tyrants of the ages in wanting to impose a certain direction on the people with an arrogance that destroys the goodwill of the governed, and sows the seeds of resentments and countercurrents of opinions. If folks who are not being included or accepted by a majority will just maintain their character while treating others with respect, they might make some actual progress in terms of tolerance/acceptance by just proving to be good neighbors and reasonable, tolerant, and respectful people who accept others gracefully themselves.

Dems need to figure out how to serve the people in general in a way that will win support from more people. Respect the people they want to represent. Not a complicated notion anyone should fail to understand.

Most Republican politicians in Utah were pretty much trying to just be all things to all people like most politicians traditionally do until the "progressive' agenda pushers from the UN to the city councils got too arrogant and stopped listening, and got so out-of-touch that people began to feel left out. The "Tea Party" sort feed off progressive indifference to the concept of representative government and the progressive agenda became more of a set of ideals imposed on people whether "for their own good" or not, by egghead elitists fixated on the fantasy of their own omniscience, hell-bent on making everybody do what's right.

In short, progressives have violated their own principle of gradualism.
 
I live in the very heavily Democrat state house district that includes the University of Utah area, and part of Summit County, which was one of the worst cases of "gerrymandering" I know of, but which the Republicans and Democrats agreed to as a throwaway to the Dems. In recent state house campaigns all the candidates have promised to end this stupid gerrymandered district. But nothing has been done. No Republican will ever win that district, it's as safe as Goldman-Sachs deal with the Feds to handle treasury bond offerings at a larcenous fee, instead of letting folks just buy direct. In short, it won't be changed unless the whole system now in place is massively rejected by the American public.

Most states have similar cozy deals between the major parties that has given both parties certain "safe" seats. That's why for many years incumbents have almost always won re-election all across the country. It looks to me like that is now threatened with overwhelming sentiment to "Throw the Bums Out". An idea whose time has come.
 
Question for Katie:

Have you taken the time to go to a single one of these Town Hall meetings? Have you been to a single city council meeting where these have been discussed?

Thanks for reading,

Trout. ;) ;)
 
TroutBum said:
Question for Katie:

Have you taken the time to go to a single one of these Town Hall meetings? Have you been to a single city council meeting where these have been discussed?

Thanks for reading,

Trout. ;) ;)
Click to expand...
No I haven't been to the meetings. Up until 2 weeks ago, I was working the swing shift (12:30-9:30) for the past 8 months. Kind of hard to go when they held the meetings during those hours. I have been following the process online, and reading reports from the meetings. Not much more I was able to do beyond that with my situation. That doesn't disqualify me from having an opinion on it all, and doing what I can to make my voice heard.
 
TroutBum said:
Question for Katie:

Have you taken the time to go to a single one of these Town Hall meetings? Have you been to a single city council meeting where these have been discussed?

Thanks for reading,

Trout. ;) ;)
Click to expand...

Who would want to go to any of these?

They sound exactly like a Glen Beck or AM radio show. I've been to a number of them and the exact same lines and the exact same arguments are made for everything. Recently I was at one about the Utopian project. People, mostly old people, rushed in and called it Communism, Obama was trying to take over the city (even though Obama had nothing to do with it), personal accountability, and so many other tired arguments.

Now, I'm not super informed on the Utopian project, but from what I know I don't think it should have been done. But to hear accusations of Communism, Socialism, and Obamacare was just ridiculous. If you're for it or against it fine, just bring some meat, not AM radio.

I've been to a few others, not as inflammatory.

But all in all, my experiences with local politics has been poor. You either agree with the loudmouth (who usually is a leader in your ward or stake) or shutup. If you disagree, you're shunned (at both political and religious places) and made to feel like you're not a good member, you're a socialist, and are spitting upon the divine founding fathers.

I remember how the goal at caucuses was to topple the "worthless" and "liberal" Bob Bennett. I'm sorry to say, that I don't see how his replacement has been an improvement.

Currently, the attitude is to get rid of Hatch, stuff vouchers down our throats, and to make teachers "more accountable."
 
Scat said:
All great endeavors.
Click to expand...

Why would getting rid of Hatch a good thing? Will his replacement really be less anxious to become a career politician? How will he be less influenced by special interest groups? People act as if getting rid of Bennett was an upgrade. What exactly has Lee done? What will Chaffetz do that will be so much better than Hatch?

Vouchers? Good? Huh?

How do you know that teachers aren't already being held accountable? Why is forcing more red tape on an already struggling to attract good talent field a good thing? We need less school boards and administrators and their pork and more support for teachers. You don't make the grade, you don't advance in class. You don't make the grade, you don't get your tax cut/welfare check/food stamp.

Less accountability demanded from the teachers (who are already performing admirably despite having horrible funding from this state) and more accountability from the state and parents.

The main issue here of course, isn't that we'll disagree. It's how we'll disagree. And that's the issue that I've found at the town hall meetings and caucuses. It's scary man, real scary.
 
Has a democrat anywhere ever gerrymandered?
 
NUMBERICA said:
And "meh, the other side would've done it too." cannot be less substantiated, lazy, or frankly ****ty.

Whatever. (R)ock on.
Click to expand...

Actually it can. Look at past elections when redistricting was imminent. Both sides do this so it is not something I care to here whining about. As one poster pointed out, they should try to find an independent solution to this problem.
 
According to wikipedia, seven states use independent/bipartisan comissions exclusive and three others use them to suggest maps to be approved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top