August 21, 2003

Gaming the democratic process  

MoveOn is working hard to publicize the 22-day walkout by Texas Senate Democrats - and rightfully so, since the story's been buried by events in California. But at stake in Texas is basically the same thing - respect for a democratic (small d) institution, one that helps provide the political stability needed for a government to effectively govern. If Texas Republicans and their puppetmaster are allowed to redistrict the state between elections, this sort of initiative will become commonplace in state legislatures, which will fundamentally change the face of American politics.

Changing the rules of the game isn't necessarily a bad thing. But there are two problems in this particular case. First of all, it puts us in a less stable political environment - redistricting battles will pop up everywhere, which means less real work will be done. Maybe more importantly, it will create a strong bias toward parties in power - ie they'll be more able to ensure that they stay in power. This is bad for anyone who's concerned about the people's ability to hold the government to account. Think about it this way: more redistricting means more power for politicians to control the way we vote.

MORE: skimble points out more Texas shenaningans. And also there's this excellent article by Timothy Noah.

Comments
bigoldgeek  {August 21, 2003}

I've always thought that if the Texas Republicans succeed in redistricting the state that the Democrats could retaliate effectively in Illinois.



New York has a Republican governor who would veto a redistricting plan and California may soon have a Republican governor. Illinois is safe, though.



Should they stoop to such petty tactics? I have to say yes. If you can't win on the high ground, get down in the mud and wrestle the mother. That's what Carville did for Clinton so effectively.

paul  {August 21, 2003}

Oh, I definitely think some retaliation would be in order. My point is just that we have institutions like the 10 year redistricting convention for a reason, and it makes a lot more sense to stick to that. But if one party defects and decides to push for redistrciting between censuses (?), I don't see that the other has any choice but to do the same...


Post a comment










Remember personal
information?