Where Do We Draw the Line?
Every ten years states are required to re-draw their legislative districts to account for population changes. The re-drawing is done by the same legislators who run for office in those districts. If that sounds fishy, it’s because it is.
Imagine an inmate who gets to draw the blueprint to his own jail cell. Do we trust him to have integrity, and to design his cell for maximum security? No, we have someone else do it, because his temptation to act in his own self-interest is apparent.
Political redistricting presents the same problem. If I’m the party in power, I’ll use redistricting to make re-election easier for me, and harder for my opponents. This is easy to do thanks to widely available voting data. Out of 15 precincts in my district, 3 never vote for me. Let’s just put them into another district.
You can’t eliminate politics from redistricting entirely, but that’s not the goal. The goal is to eliminate the blatant conflict of interest that allows legislators to hand-pick who their constituents will be. This process leads to less competitive elections, less capable legislators, and bad public policy.
Unfortunately, the only ones who can change the system are the same legislators who are most benefited by it. Any bets on how soon they’ll get around to it?
Does this mean @Bagyants is back to political blogging? I can only hope so.
Rolling rolling rolling.
Rolling. Rolling. Rolling.
nomoretexasgovernorsforpresident:
Can you find the word “jobs” in Mitch Daniels’s Republican rebuttal?
Found it. Apparently jobs were less important than the president or how he was wrong.
(via think4yourself)
I just sent an email with the subject line, “This is it.” Now here I am.
U.S. soldiers returning home face a culture that doesn’t understand them:
The 1 percent tends to be concentrated in the southern states and among the working and lower-middle classes. With a few notable exceptions—such as vice-president Joe Biden’s son Beau—the children of the elite have not served in these wars. It’s a sharp change from the night of Pearl Harbor, when Eleanor Roosevelt told a radio audience, “I have a boy at sea on a destroyer, for all I know he may be on his way to the Pacific.”
Instead, America now has its first generation of political and business leaders who have not served in the military, and it shows. With the Pentagon ordered to slash spending as part of wider government budget cutting, military benefits, such as pensions, and college education funding for veterans are on the chopping block.
“Veterans’ Struggle.” — Anna Fifield, Financial Times
See also: “The Last Two Veterans of WWI.” — Evan Fleischer, The Awl, May 3, 2011
being in a military family, i can certainly vouch for the fact that there are absolutely cost cuts that can be legitimately made in the defense budget. but spending on our military persons and their families - be it benefits, long-term care, education, pensions - any of that - needs to be absolutely off the table.
it’s pretty shitty wondering whether or not you’re going to have a husband return from war broken (or if he’s going to return at all) while also worrying about whether or not someone in congress thinks that he doesn’t deserve long-term care after when they never bothered to fight or send their children or spouses. it’s not exactly easy, folks, but these kinds of things should just be understood as absolutely untouchable. just like you don’t want to go fight, we don’t want them to come home and have nowhere to turn for help. you don’t get to say concussions are such a huge deal and we need to spend more time and attention on those kinds of injuries then give up funding for it. it’s all so backwards and irritates me so much.
</diatribe.>
I concur with the above “diatribe.” I am currently working to help get homeless veterans permanent housing in our city. For our veterans we can never do enough.
— Banksy (via sirmitchell)
(via colincurtis)







