Senate Dems Kill Two Redistricting Bills In Less Than 24 hrs

I'm all for more competitive districts. If they faced serious competition each election they'll be much more responsive to their electorate.

Does anyone really think they are going to come together on this? I don't....let the courts have at it.

A GOP state senator admitted Wednesday that the redistricting maps Republicans drew were deliberately tweaked to give their side an advantage.

Democrats argue that their maps create two "safe" seats — in Democratic Denver and Republican El Paso County — and five competitive seats. They said Republicans created as many as five safe GOP seats.

Read more: GOP admits skewing Colorado redistricting maps - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/legislature/c ... z1M5NNOG7H
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse

http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/gerrymandering.htm

Look here for a definition of the illegal act of gerrymandering.

archer wrote: PrintSmith did you look at the proposed map...nothing of the sort you are complaining about is being proposed....no part of Denver is being added to Boulder, nor to Park are Elbert. Look at the proposed map before commenting.

The point I was making archer was that you could, if you wanted to, put half of Denver into the same district as Colorado Springs to make the district competitive in an election, but that wouldn't accomplish the intent of having the elected representative actually represent the district. The purpose of the redistricting has to be to balance to the greatest extent possible the number of people in each district along with the interests of those within the district. Drawing up the districts for the purpose of making them competitive in an election is senseless and counterproductive.

PrintSmith wrote:

archer wrote: PrintSmith did you look at the proposed map...nothing of the sort you are complaining about is being proposed....no part of Denver is being added to Boulder, nor to Park are Elbert. Look at the proposed map before commenting.

The point I was making archer was that you could, if you wanted to, put half of Denver into the same district as Colorado Springs to make the district competitive in an election, but that wouldn't accomplish the intent of having the elected representative actually represent the district. The purpose of the redistricting has to be to balance to the greatest extent possible the number of people in each district along with the interests of those within the district. Drawing up the districts for the purpose of making them competitive in an election is senseless and counterproductive.

You're using a strawman argument......arguing against something that hasn't been proposed.....and I have no intention of defending a proposal that doesn't exist. Every census the party in power tweaks the diastricting to their advantage.......the Democrats this time around want to tweak them so there is one sure R seat, one sure D seat and the rest of the districts are competitive. I don't see anything in their map that puts unlike areas together....splitting the eastern plains from the western slopes is the biggest change. The republicans, on the other hand, put forth a districting plan that would create 5 R districts and the rest competitive. Do you really think I, or the democratic Senate would let that pass un challenged? Fortunately the Republicans are not in complete control so they don't get all that they want.

But, in theory, that is what is being proposed.

Beyond this point however, is the fact that the Democrats, once again, are neglecting their constituional responsibilities, in favor of the court's decision. I didn't elect any representative to blow-off their responsibilites of office, to play with issues this important.

Should a judge decide for them, they can excuse themselves from any responsibility and once again blame the Republicans for any changes made to the District boundaries in the future. It is very likely the Republicans will in the future, attempt to correct what should have been done yesterday.

This is very similar to the Dems failing to pass a Federal Budget and then, after having lost the majority in the US House, blaming the Republicans for wanting to cut Trillions of dollars from a budget that should have been passed months previously, and already in place.

archer wrote: You're using a strawman argument......arguing against something that hasn't been proposed.....and I have no intention of defending a proposal that doesn't exist. Every census the party in power tweaks the diastricting to their advantage.......the Democrats this time around want to tweak them so there is one sure R seat, one sure D seat and the rest of the districts are competitive. I don't see anything in their map that puts unlike areas together....splitting the eastern plains from the western slopes is the biggest change. The republicans, on the other hand, put forth a districting plan that would create 5 R districts and the rest competitive. Do you really think I, or the democratic Senate would let that pass un challenged? Fortunately the Republicans are not in complete control so they don't get all that they want.

I am responding to your earlier post:

archer wrote: I actually like the idea of districts that are more evenly divided, since our state is pretty evenly divided.....I would hope that would make those running for office seriously think about what is best for their district, not just what is best for their party. they would need to appeal to both those who would vote for them because of the letter after their name, and to those they need from the other party to get elected.

You like the idea of districts that are evenly divided. One way to make them evenly divided would be to put half of Denver into the same district as Colorado Springs. That would result in a competitive district, but it would also negate the ability for the representative to represent the interests of their district since the two different cities have two different representative needs, wants and desires. Farmers, by and large, lean more Republican. If you want to them to have a representative that truly represents them in the national Congress then you don't seek to set the district boundaries according to the number of registered voters from each party, you set the boundaries so that ranchers get to choose who they want in Washington to represent the ranching interests of Colorado. Same for the farming community, same for the tourist communities, same for the urban communities and the suburban communities. The person representing the district should be representing the interests of that district at the national level. The ranchers would choose a Democrat who represented their interests over a Republican who did not and the Denverites would choose a Republican who represented their interests over a Democrat who did not. Regardless of party, the chosen representative must accurately represent the district or their party affiliation won't amount to a hill of beans.

That is why you draw the district boundaries according to the interests of the district, not the number of registered voters that would reside within the district so that the seat is competitive in straight party line voting. The problem we have is that the parties, not the people, currently have the power of governance. We have Obamacare because representatives represented their party and not their district. We have Medicare Part D because the members of Congress represented their party and not the people in their district. The states are being crushed by the federal mandates in Medicare because the members of Congress supported consolidation of power into the federated government over the sovereignty of the states. The problem right now in this nation is that the parties are representing the federated government and their special interest groups, not the citizens of the states who elected them.

I'm sorry, but the only way out of the hole that has been dug is to strip power from the federated government in the arena of domestic affairs and return it to the separate, independent and sovereign states where it is rightfully supposed to reside. I have no issue with RomneyCare in Massachusetts. I have a huge issue with ObamaCare. I would have no issue if Colorado chose to enact a shared social pension plan for its citizens, but I have a huge issue with Social Security. Do you see the difference?

PrintSmith,

Very Good! You've brought up several failures in the way we are being represented. That, in fact, is my main concern. Our Representatives largely represent the party interests or their personal interests first.

That is what causes the gerrymandering and the shrugging-off of their constitutional responsibility to appropriately redistrict.