The redistricting commission final recommendation is to split Syracuse across 4 House of Representative seats. http://www.redistrictutah.com/maps/hb3001
If you do not speak out substantially against this, you really should change your title of representative to something else. A fair redistricting process or outcome would not change the partisan makeup of the legislature. The only thing republicans can gain by gerrymandering in this fashion is to relinquish their integrity that is already in question.
The recommended state senate map is far from fair or perfect. But at least they had the good sense not to provoke any more organization of opposition in Syracuse.
I am serious Mr. Wilson. If you do not make a public statement in opposition to this and if you go ahead and vote to adopt it, I will call publicly for your resignation and investigate what must be done to initiate a recall. You simply cannot call yourself a representative if you do not take up this banner for your constituents. Your duty is to represent them, not your party.
This whole affair speaks to the veracity of George Washington's farewell address that dividing up into factions and parties and striving with words and suspicions one neighbor and community against another would unravel our beloved republic. Indeed it seems to be so. Make your mark on history and do right by your district. You will not have to live with the regret of having gone along with the crowd.
Sincerely,
Randy Miller, President
Utah League of independent Voters
Syracuse, Utah
Showing posts with label Gerrymandering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gerrymandering. Show all posts
Saturday, October 1, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Book Review, Mad as Hell by Doug Schoen and Scott Rasmussen
Mad as Hell
How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking our Two-Party System
I was not impressed by this book initially. I started with an open mind thinking maybe the Tea Party movement is more mainstream, less ideological or effective than I thought according to the claims in the introduction of Mad as Hell. The first half of the book left me the impression they were trying to affirm the relevance of the Tea Party as means of selling books as if to say ‘See, you are mainstream. Our book says so. Now buy our book.’
It is worth noting that the editing prior to publishing was not done. The book is rife with spelling and grammatical errors as many reviews for Mad as Hell on Amazon.com will point out in detail. I can't help but wonder if this publication was just a get-rich-quick for-profit venture.
Granted the challenge to Rasmussen and Schoen is the rapidly changing dynamic of what the Tea Party movement is and who it is led by. Even since I started this review things have taken a turn with the Rand Paul campaign violence episode. Some old questions are now up in the air again: Who or what is the Tea Party? Who are the leaders? Is the Tea Party a bunch of racist hillbillies or a legitimate political force? Is the Tea Party grassroots or Astroturf? Pinning an accurate label on the Tea Party is probably not impossible. Just about anything one might say could stick with some truth and relevance. But being a groundswell movement, any labels subscribed to the Tea Party can only be transitory at best. Time will still have to tell what the movement will definitively stand for and more importantly accomplish long term.
From page 5 of the introduction of Mad as Hell: “It is not only America’s most vibrant political force “at the moment” to quote The Economist, but a movement that has unprecedented broad-based support, and the power to influence the 2010 and 2012 elections and, indeed, the future of American politics in ways that have been fundamentally misunderstood and not appreciated.”
From their own statistics later in the book on the demographics of Tea Party sympathizers: 80% are White, just 2% African-American. 68% are Protestant. Are we to conclude that White and Protestant is the new mainstream?
According to the University of Washington study on the subject (http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html) 45% of White Americans support the Tea Party movement. White support is evenly divided in enthusiasm: 23% strongly support, 22% somewhat support. White population (18 years old and older) from the 2000 Census is 205,158,752. Translation, nearly 1 in 3 Americans is a Tea Party supporter. One third is hardly a majority but still a substantial showing. Mad as Hell opens by asserting that the Tea Party movement can be classified as mainstream. I was skeptical of that assertion, but given these numbers it is safe to say that the Tea Party in general terms is in fact a mainstream movement.
The effectiveness of the Tea Party can clearly be measured in the short term, but what about long term? The Obama administration has advanced a number of ideological agendas and the Tea Party is a largely dare I say ‘knee jerk’ ideological reaction. Neither persuasion addresses the issue of the necessity of systematic power to the people political reforms. Each side of this short term ideological skirmish is looking at the outcome of this skirmish as an ominous indicator of the future of this country. Although those concerns probably have some merit, where are the strategic thinkers looking beyond this relatively brief skirmish? And why or how did we wind up on opposite sides seemingly on grappling for control of our republic?
More insight into the Tea Party direction and affiliation with the GOP from Mad as Hell: “”the plurality of GOP voters (43%) say their party has been too moderate over the past eight years, and 55% think it should become more like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the future.” These numbers reflect a party driven by a populist core increasingly uninterested in compromise.” (p.171) More like Sarah Palin? Uninterested in compromise? Let me know how that works out for ‘ya. I guess I draw a lot of my skepticism from the fact that factions uninterested in compromise usually have a limited lifecycle in this country or go to great lengths to maintain their control unconstitutionally and unethically (Jim Crow for example).
The Palin Factor
Perhaps my skepticism is related to the Palin factor. I just assumed that both conservatives and liberals know that more appeal is better than less when it comes to winning elections. Like, love or hate Palin, or somewhere in between, I thought it was pretty obvious that Sarah Palin only appealed to party loyalists and evidently white protestant GOP loyalists at that. Truth is, Sarah ‘Fox News’ Palin does not have wide appeal. And the Tea Party movement seems OK with these types of ideological purist arrangements. So, I guess I am skeptical why they think the inequality 33%<51% isn’t an impediment from the start. The best consensus builder (Obama) won in the 2008 Presidential election. He hasn’t done much for that consensus in the meantime, but the basic logic has not changed. I don’t know. Perhaps they are banking on continuing to manipulate the Electoral College and to gerrymander districts (something Karl Rove has unabashedly sworn to do) —another testament to how radically we need to reform the political process away from party manipulation and control. GOP 'tea party' gains in 2010 are from a different kind of establishment power assertion and manipulation of the system, not from a wider appeal and building coalitions of groups who disagree on some points. It appears to me to be a line in the sand when success depends on a successful sales pitch.
So, I started the book skeptical that the Tea Party movement could be considered truly ‘mainstream’. I’m much less skeptical now, but the definition of the Tea Party changes so much from day to day, that it will just be interesting to see what shakes out.
The Conclusion chapter of Mad as Hell was the best. The book would have held me better had I read the conclusion first. Still, if any chapter received any solid editing, I would think it would be the conclusion and the editing is noticeably absent. Perhaps coverage of such a mercurial subject as the Tea Party requires that you publish quickly to get out in front before the subject reinvents itself. I’ll give the authors that one, but I do wonder if there is a niche of sorts for a new style of relevant content much lengthier than a blog, not suited for published video content, but not worth publishing as a hard cover or even e-book as the content may not be relevant in six weeks.
About the author: Randy Miller is an independent in Utah, founder of the Utah League of independent Voters and an independent candidate for County Surveyor in Davis County Utah.
How the Tea Party Movement is Fundamentally Remaking our Two-Party System
I was not impressed by this book initially. I started with an open mind thinking maybe the Tea Party movement is more mainstream, less ideological or effective than I thought according to the claims in the introduction of Mad as Hell. The first half of the book left me the impression they were trying to affirm the relevance of the Tea Party as means of selling books as if to say ‘See, you are mainstream. Our book says so. Now buy our book.’
It is worth noting that the editing prior to publishing was not done. The book is rife with spelling and grammatical errors as many reviews for Mad as Hell on Amazon.com will point out in detail. I can't help but wonder if this publication was just a get-rich-quick for-profit venture.
Granted the challenge to Rasmussen and Schoen is the rapidly changing dynamic of what the Tea Party movement is and who it is led by. Even since I started this review things have taken a turn with the Rand Paul campaign violence episode. Some old questions are now up in the air again: Who or what is the Tea Party? Who are the leaders? Is the Tea Party a bunch of racist hillbillies or a legitimate political force? Is the Tea Party grassroots or Astroturf? Pinning an accurate label on the Tea Party is probably not impossible. Just about anything one might say could stick with some truth and relevance. But being a groundswell movement, any labels subscribed to the Tea Party can only be transitory at best. Time will still have to tell what the movement will definitively stand for and more importantly accomplish long term.
From page 5 of the introduction of Mad as Hell: “It is not only America’s most vibrant political force “at the moment” to quote The Economist, but a movement that has unprecedented broad-based support, and the power to influence the 2010 and 2012 elections and, indeed, the future of American politics in ways that have been fundamentally misunderstood and not appreciated.”
From their own statistics later in the book on the demographics of Tea Party sympathizers: 80% are White, just 2% African-American. 68% are Protestant. Are we to conclude that White and Protestant is the new mainstream?
According to the University of Washington study on the subject (http://depts.washington.edu/uwiser/racepolitics.html) 45% of White Americans support the Tea Party movement. White support is evenly divided in enthusiasm: 23% strongly support, 22% somewhat support. White population (18 years old and older) from the 2000 Census is 205,158,752. Translation, nearly 1 in 3 Americans is a Tea Party supporter. One third is hardly a majority but still a substantial showing. Mad as Hell opens by asserting that the Tea Party movement can be classified as mainstream. I was skeptical of that assertion, but given these numbers it is safe to say that the Tea Party in general terms is in fact a mainstream movement.
Effectiveness
The effectiveness of the Tea Party can clearly be measured in the short term, but what about long term? The Obama administration has advanced a number of ideological agendas and the Tea Party is a largely dare I say ‘knee jerk’ ideological reaction. Neither persuasion addresses the issue of the necessity of systematic power to the people political reforms. Each side of this short term ideological skirmish is looking at the outcome of this skirmish as an ominous indicator of the future of this country. Although those concerns probably have some merit, where are the strategic thinkers looking beyond this relatively brief skirmish? And why or how did we wind up on opposite sides seemingly on grappling for control of our republic?
More insight into the Tea Party direction and affiliation with the GOP from Mad as Hell: “”the plurality of GOP voters (43%) say their party has been too moderate over the past eight years, and 55% think it should become more like Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the future.” These numbers reflect a party driven by a populist core increasingly uninterested in compromise.” (p.171) More like Sarah Palin? Uninterested in compromise? Let me know how that works out for ‘ya. I guess I draw a lot of my skepticism from the fact that factions uninterested in compromise usually have a limited lifecycle in this country or go to great lengths to maintain their control unconstitutionally and unethically (Jim Crow for example).
The Palin Factor 
Perhaps my skepticism is related to the Palin factor. I just assumed that both conservatives and liberals know that more appeal is better than less when it comes to winning elections. Like, love or hate Palin, or somewhere in between, I thought it was pretty obvious that Sarah Palin only appealed to party loyalists and evidently white protestant GOP loyalists at that. Truth is, Sarah ‘Fox News’ Palin does not have wide appeal. And the Tea Party movement seems OK with these types of ideological purist arrangements. So, I guess I am skeptical why they think the inequality 33%<51% isn’t an impediment from the start. The best consensus builder (Obama) won in the 2008 Presidential election. He hasn’t done much for that consensus in the meantime, but the basic logic has not changed. I don’t know. Perhaps they are banking on continuing to manipulate the Electoral College and to gerrymander districts (something Karl Rove has unabashedly sworn to do) —another testament to how radically we need to reform the political process away from party manipulation and control. GOP 'tea party' gains in 2010 are from a different kind of establishment power assertion and manipulation of the system, not from a wider appeal and building coalitions of groups who disagree on some points. It appears to me to be a line in the sand when success depends on a successful sales pitch.
So, I started the book skeptical that the Tea Party movement could be considered truly ‘mainstream’. I’m much less skeptical now, but the definition of the Tea Party changes so much from day to day, that it will just be interesting to see what shakes out.
The Conclusion chapter of Mad as Hell was the best. The book would have held me better had I read the conclusion first. Still, if any chapter received any solid editing, I would think it would be the conclusion and the editing is noticeably absent. Perhaps coverage of such a mercurial subject as the Tea Party requires that you publish quickly to get out in front before the subject reinvents itself. I’ll give the authors that one, but I do wonder if there is a niche of sorts for a new style of relevant content much lengthier than a blog, not suited for published video content, but not worth publishing as a hard cover or even e-book as the content may not be relevant in six weeks.
About the author: Randy Miller is an independent in Utah, founder of the Utah League of independent Voters and an independent candidate for County Surveyor in Davis County Utah.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Wait a Second
Earlier this year, April 4th to be exact, I spoke with State Senator Mike Waddoups and KSL host Richard Piatt about independent redistricting. Here is a transcript and a commentary.
Piatt: OK, so Fairboundaries wants to change the process of how these boundaries are drawn. How do you propose to do that?
Miller: Yes, the Fairboundaries initiative that's been drawn up proposes to establish an 11 member commission to redraw these boundaries. One thing to realize though is not just the Utah Constitution but the United States Constitution charges the legislature to redraw the districts after each census. The only problem is inside of that, there is an inherent conflict of interest, you have the fox watching the henhouse essentially.
Initially, I think when they framed the constitution, I don't think our founding fathers, with as much skin as they had in the game, having gone through a bloody revolution, they essentially were traitors to their country, and what they went through they could not have possibly have imagined the low level of character that it would take to manipulate these districts for a particular political gain.
Piatt: Lets take a look at that graphic again and show what exactly this petition purports to do. It purports to create a commission that's independent.
Sen Waddoups, do you believe that can be the case? Is the system as it exists right now better than what they are proposing it should be?
Waddoups: I think the current system works very well, for proof of that I would point to the fact that Utah has never been sued for a gerrymander for innappropriately drawing the districts. Most states where they have gerrymanders have lawsuits. The Texas example, there was a suit going on for 10 years until the next reapportionment. Utah never gets sued because we have people that are representing their constituents that are doing the right things.
Piatt: But you don't purport to say that gerrymandering doesn't exist. There are examples, the ones we showed you have a couple in your folder there. So is gerrymandering a problem do you think?
It does exist in this country yes, it doesn't happen in Utah because
of the constituency that we're representing. In Utah it's expected that we will represent our constituency and if we don't it's expected they would vote us out of office.
Piatt: Do you resent this notion that you're one of the foxes guarding the henhouse in this process?
Waddoups: I certainly do, because it says in the constitution that the legislature will draw their boundaries and those boundaries are drawn by people that are elected by the public. I would say this maybe is the rooster guarding the hen house but certainly not a fox.
1. So, if I am understanding the Senator correctly, 'Utah is a rare example where politicians do the right thing and represent their constituency or they are voted out, not like other places in the country where unresponsive representatives are not voted out'? Alright, general public, please weigh in on that one. I for one think a jury will not buy that argument.
2. We've never been sued, so see, no gerrymandering. C'mon. If we all took that attitude at work how long would our companies be in business. We've never been sued for negligence, so naturally our product or service is superior
3. We have legislators doing the right thing and representing their consitituents? Like Kevin Garn and Sheldon Killpack?
Piatt: OK, so Fairboundaries wants to change the process of how these boundaries are drawn. How do you propose to do that?
Miller: Yes, the Fairboundaries initiative that's been drawn up proposes to establish an 11 member commission to redraw these boundaries. One thing to realize though is not just the Utah Constitution but the United States Constitution charges the legislature to redraw the districts after each census. The only problem is inside of that, there is an inherent conflict of interest, you have the fox watching the henhouse essentially.
Initially, I think when they framed the constitution, I don't think our founding fathers, with as much skin as they had in the game, having gone through a bloody revolution, they essentially were traitors to their country, and what they went through they could not have possibly have imagined the low level of character that it would take to manipulate these districts for a particular political gain.
Piatt: Lets take a look at that graphic again and show what exactly this petition purports to do. It purports to create a commission that's independent.
- 11 member commission
No more than 4 from any political party
Anti gerrymandering standards
Open, transparent process
Sen Waddoups, do you believe that can be the case? Is the system as it exists right now better than what they are proposing it should be?
Waddoups: I think the current system works very well, for proof of that I would point to the fact that Utah has never been sued for a gerrymander for innappropriately drawing the districts. Most states where they have gerrymanders have lawsuits. The Texas example, there was a suit going on for 10 years until the next reapportionment. Utah never gets sued because we have people that are representing their constituents that are doing the right things.
Piatt: But you don't purport to say that gerrymandering doesn't exist. There are examples, the ones we showed you have a couple in your folder there. So is gerrymandering a problem do you think?
It does exist in this country yes, it doesn't happen in Utah because
of the constituency that we're representing. In Utah it's expected that we will represent our constituency and if we don't it's expected they would vote us out of office.
Piatt: Do you resent this notion that you're one of the foxes guarding the henhouse in this process?
Waddoups: I certainly do, because it says in the constitution that the legislature will draw their boundaries and those boundaries are drawn by people that are elected by the public. I would say this maybe is the rooster guarding the hen house but certainly not a fox.
Commentary
1. So, if I am understanding the Senator correctly, 'Utah is a rare example where politicians do the right thing and represent their constituency or they are voted out, not like other places in the country where unresponsive representatives are not voted out'? Alright, general public, please weigh in on that one. I for one think a jury will not buy that argument.
2. We've never been sued, so see, no gerrymandering. C'mon. If we all took that attitude at work how long would our companies be in business. We've never been sued for negligence, so naturally our product or service is superior
3. We have legislators doing the right thing and representing their consitituents? Like Kevin Garn and Sheldon Killpack?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)