Lol, this is gonna be such a clusterfuck! :bleeding:
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/09/9337143-supreme-court-throws-texas-elections-into-disarray-over-district-maps-dispute
QuoteSupreme Court throws Texas elections into disarray over district maps dispute
By msnbc.com staff and wire reports
Updated at 11 p.m. EST
The Supreme Court late Friday blocked the use of Texas state legislative and congressional district maps that were drawn by federal judges to boost minorities' voting power, throwing election filings into limbo and likely causing a delay in spring voting.
The court issued a brief order Friday that applies to electoral maps drawn by federal judges in San Antonio for the Texas Legislature and Congress. The justices said they will hear arguments in the case on Jan. 9.
"This thrusts the Supreme Court right into the partisan thicket," Richard L. Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine, told The New York Times. "It is no exaggeration to say that with three or four additional Democratic seats at issue under the original court-drawn plan, the decision could help decide control of the House."
Reactions in Texas:
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, whose office appealed the case to the Supreme Court: "We understand the need for speed for Texas voters as well as those who wish to run for office and will work to resolve this matter as quickly as possible."
Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst: The court's decision shows the federal judges in San Antonio "overreached and displayed judicial activism inconsistent with federal law and contrary to the intent of the Legislature."
State Rep. Trey Martinez Fischer, the leader of the Mexican-American Legislative Caucus, which participated in the San Antonio lawsuit: "Our resolve remains stronger than ever and our commitment to minority voting rights unwavering. If there ever was a textbook case of Voting Rights Act violations, this is it. We look forward to making our case before the United States Supreme Court."
Guidance from top court
A Supreme Court decision likely also will provide guidance on the role of the federal courts under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Times said. Section 5 of the law requires Texas and other jurisdictions with a history of discrimination to seek federal permission to make even minor changes to voting procedures.
In the redistricting case, Texas says the federal judges overstepped their authority and should have taken into account the electoral maps that were drawn by the Republican-dominated Texas Legislature.
The order brings to a halt filing for legislative and congressional primary elections that began Nov. 28.
The primaries had been scheduled to take place in March but with the Supreme Court's intervention, those elections almost certainly will be delayed.
The maps issued by the judges appeared to give Democrats a greater chance of winning seats in the state House and Senate than did the plans approved by those bodies and signed into law by Gov. Rick Perry.
advertisement
In addition, the court-drawn congressional map ensured minorities made up the majority in three additional Texas congressional districts, an outcome the judges said better reflected the growth in the state's Hispanic population.
Redistricting was necessary because Texas is adding four U.S. House seats based on population gains in the 2010 census.
Minorities currently are the majority in 10 of Texas' 32 congressional districts. The new court-drawn map would have raised that to 13 out of 36 districts, an outcome the judges said better reflected the growth in the state's Hispanic population.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Gee, I wonder what the vote is going to be, and in whose favor. :rolleyes:
Which is more desirable, districts that are majority black/white/hispanic, or districts that are multicultural?
Black districts give more entertaining congresspeople.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 10, 2011, 03:47:15 PM
Which is more desirable, districts that are majority black/white/hispanic, or districts that are multicultural?
Districts that don't pay any attention to ethnicity.
The best districts would be neither ethnically-based nor drawn along partisan lines ie gerrymandering. But it appears thats what you have to choose between in Texas.
Quote from: Gaius Marius on December 10, 2011, 04:35:12 PM
The best districts would be neither ethnically-based nor drawn along partisan lines ie gerrymandering. But it appears thats what you have to choose between in Texas.
:lol: The only thing dumber than allowing judges to draw the district borders is allowing Texans to do so. Hell, the crayon the legislature used wasn't even sharpened!
I have a simple, yet elegant solution. Texans won't be able to vote. Problem solved.
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2011, 06:51:31 PM
Quote from: Gaius Marius on December 10, 2011, 04:35:12 PM
The best districts would be neither ethnically-based nor drawn along partisan lines ie gerrymandering. But it appears thats what you have to choose between in Texas.
:lol: The only thing dumber than allowing judges to draw the district borders is allowing Texans to do so. Hell, the crayon the legislature used wasn't even sharpened!
Only stuck-up, snotty brats actually bother to sharpen crayons.
Sharp crayons give you nosebleed.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 10, 2011, 03:47:15 PM
Which is more desirable, districts that are majority black/white/hispanic, or districts that are multicultural?
Multikulti doesn't work. Merkel said so.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 10, 2011, 08:16:09 PM
Only stuck-up, snotty brats actually bother to sharpen crayons.
Somebody sounds like they suffered some serious childhood trauma when they tried to make their blunt crayons usable! :(
Sorry to have sparked those memories.:hug:
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 10:03:37 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 10, 2011, 08:16:09 PM
Only stuck-up, snotty brats actually bother to sharpen crayons.
Somebody sounds like they suffered some serious childhood trauma when they tried to make their blunt crayons usable! :(
Sorry to have sparked those memories.:hug:
I don't get this notion of sharpening crayons. I learned early on that a peeled crayon is a diminished crayon. Was better to throw them out and ask for a new box.
Massachusetts just redistricted its voting districts, having lost a couple of House seats. Our heavily Democratic Legistlature did it up for the most part. Strangely enough, Repubs seem to think it may help them, so all four of the State's Republicans are cautiously optimistic. ;) Barney Frank said the changes in his district were part of the reason why he decided to retire now. He was only planning on serving one more term anyway, and his district contained some new towns, so he didn't want to go through all the effort to campaign and try and appeal to a new crop of voters, and then rationalize to them that he was only serving one term.
Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2011, 02:23:02 PM
I don't get this notion of sharpening crayons.
I've never heard of it, either. It was a throw-away line designed to say something about the Texas legislature, not to say something about crayons.
Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2011, 04:28:11 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2011, 02:23:02 PM
I don't get this notion of sharpening crayons.
I've never heard of it, either. It was a throw-away line designed to say something about the Texas legislature, not to say something about crayons.
The large crayola boxes do have sharpeners though.
At some point you do need to sharpen the crayons. Obviously by their very design the points on them don't need to be as pointy as on pencils, but if they're too dull, they start drawing very inconsistently. Depending on how they're rotated in your hand, you either have more friction than you expect or less friction than you expect, which makes it hard to know how much force to apply to them to get the desired level of shading.
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 05:19:31 PM
At some point you do need to sharpen the crayons. Obviously by their very design the points on them don't need to be as pointy as on pencils, but if they're too dull, they start drawing very inconsistently. Depending on how they're rotated in your hand, you either have more friction than you expect or less friction than you expect, which makes it hard to know how much force to apply to them to get the desired level of shading.
That's what new crayons are for. :huh:
Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2011, 05:29:50 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 05:19:31 PM
At some point you do need to sharpen the crayons. Obviously by their very design the points on them don't need to be as pointy as on pencils, but if they're too dull, they start drawing very inconsistently. Depending on how they're rotated in your hand, you either have more friction than you expect or less friction than you expect, which makes it hard to know how much force to apply to them to get the desired level of shading.
That's what new crayons are for. :huh:
Sure, and you can get a new car whenever it's time to bring your old one in for maintenance, but just getting maintenance for your current car is probably a more practical solution.
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 05:39:48 PM
Sure, and you can get a new car whenever it's time to bring your old one in for maintenance, but just getting maintenance for your current car is probably a more practical solution.
How much does a 64 pack cost? 5 bucks?
Are we still talking about crayons?
Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 05:39:48 PM
Sure, and you can get a new car whenever it's time to bring your old one in for maintenance, but just getting maintenance for your current car is probably a more practical solution.
How much does a 64 pack cost? 5 bucks?
5 bucks is a lot of money to a 5 year old.
A crayon, a crayon, my Kingdom for a crayon!!!
Quote from: KRonn on December 11, 2011, 06:57:06 PM
A crayon, a crayon, my Kingdom congressional district for a crayon!!!
Fixed
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 11, 2011, 06:41:32 PM
Quote from: garbon on December 11, 2011, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 11, 2011, 05:39:48 PM
Sure, and you can get a new car whenever it's time to bring your old one in for maintenance, but just getting maintenance for your current car is probably a more practical solution.
How much does a 64 pack cost? 5 bucks?
5 bucks is a lot of money to a 5 year old.
I never paid for mine.
Why oh why can't America just use nice sensible geographic/population number districts.
I was most railing against crayon sharpeners. Real kids sharpen their crayons by scraping the edges at high speed in a meaningless pattern to restore a good point.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 11, 2011, 09:48:09 PM
I was most railing against crayon sharpeners. Real kids sharpen their crayons by scraping the edges at high speed in a meaningless pattern to restore a good point.
:yes: It's how Bear Grylls sharpened his crayons.
Quote from: grumbler on December 10, 2011, 06:51:31 PM
:lol: The only thing dumber than allowing judges to draw the district borders is allowing Texans to do so. Hell, the crayon the legislature used wasn't even sharpened!
Politics is not held in very high regard here. As I have mentioned many times our best and brightest do not want political careers so it gets filled by mediocrities with massive egos. The real mystery is why the rest of the country keeps putting Texas politicians in positions of authority on a national level. I mean how stupid are you guys?
Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2011, 09:12:58 AM
Politics is not held in very high regard here. As I have mentioned many times our best and brightest do not want political careers so it gets filled by mediocrities with massive egos. The real mystery is why the rest of the country keeps putting Texas politicians in positions of authority on a national level. I mean how stupid are you guys?
As if your system differs from the national one...
Quote from: PDH on December 12, 2011, 09:53:23 AM
As if your system differs from the national one...
Well you have a good point there :hmm:
But I mean a populist distrust of politicians is a tradition that goes back to the days Texans used to elect notorious gunfighters to important offices.
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2011, 08:23:42 PM
Why oh why can't America just use nice sensible geographic/population number districts.
Some of America does. For other parts of America, though, a logical system that maximizes population equality while retaining as much regular shape as possible is not sufficiently partisan. The political "spoils system" mentality that Britain managed to strangle in its crib is alive and quite well in most of the US. Redistricting is seen in those places as just a part of the spoils.
The court's blundering doesn't help; that simply exposes the court system to charges of partisan bias, since the court has no more interest in logical redistricting than the legislature.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2011, 10:20:55 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2011, 08:23:42 PM
Why oh why can't America just use nice sensible geographic/population number districts.
Some of America does. For other parts of America, though, a logical system that maximizes population equality while retaining as much regular shape as possible is not sufficiently partisan. The political "spoils system" mentality that Britain managed to strangle in its crib is alive and quite well in most of the US. Redistricting is seen in those places as just a part of the spoils.
The court's blundering doesn't help; that simply exposes the court system to charges of partisan bias, since the court has no more interest in logical redistricting than the legislature.
The federal courst have pretty consistantly held (for the last 40-50 years at least) that congressional districts have to be quite close to equal in population. They have generally not touched the question of gerrymandering along partisan lines. They have, however, been clear that districts can't be drawn along racial lines so as to artificially diminish the voting power of minorities. They haven't been at all clear as to whether districts can be drawn along racial lines so as to enhance the voting power of minorities.
Quote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:31:08 PM
The federal courst have pretty consistantly held (for the last 40-50 years at least) that congressional districts have to be quite close to equal in population. They have generally not touched the question of gerrymandering along partisan lines. They have, however, been clear that districts can't be drawn along racial lines so as to artificially diminish the voting power of minorities. They haven't been at all clear as to whether districts can be drawn along racial lines so as to enhance the voting power of minorities.
I understand that the courts hold that a man's vote doesn't count unless he gets to vote for one of "his kind," and that no one votes for anything other than "his kind," but I think that is patently stupid. There is no such thing as a "racial line" and all the attempts to gerrymander congressional districts to ensure the right mix of "races" get elected simply brings the judiciary into disrepute.
Sure, there are racists who really believe that races exist, but they shouldn't be sitting on the Federal bench.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2011, 06:02:41 PM
Quote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 03:31:08 PM
The federal courst have pretty consistantly held (for the last 40-50 years at least) that congressional districts have to be quite close to equal in population. They have generally not touched the question of gerrymandering along partisan lines. They have, however, been clear that districts can't be drawn along racial lines so as to artificially diminish the voting power of minorities. They haven't been at all clear as to whether districts can be drawn along racial lines so as to enhance the voting power of minorities.
I understand that the courts hold that a man's vote doesn't count unless he gets to vote for one of "his kind," and that no one votes for anything other than "his kind," but I think that is patently stupid. There is no such thing as a "racial line" and all the attempts to gerrymander congressional districts to ensure the right mix of "races" get elected simply brings the judiciary into disrepute.
Sure, there are racists who really believe that races exist, but they shouldn't be sitting on the Federal bench.
People who don't believe that in the past, voting districts have been drawn to deliberately dilute the voting power of minorities, particularly blacks, probably shouldn't be allowed to teach school and mold young minds.
Granted, I agree that it would be best if district boundaries were drawn without taking race into account at all.
I would have thought that during Jim Crow racial gerrymandering to suppress black representation was redundant. Then with the passage of the Civil Rights Act southern states at least had to get their districting plans okayed. So I'm not sure when it could have taken place.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2011, 10:20:55 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 11, 2011, 08:23:42 PM
Why oh why can't America just use nice sensible geographic/population number districts.
Some of America does. For other parts of America, though, a logical system that maximizes population equality while retaining as much regular shape as possible is not sufficiently partisan. The political "spoils system" mentality that Britain managed to strangle in its crib is alive and quite well in most of the US. Redistricting is seen in those places as just a part of the spoils.
The court's blundering doesn't help; that simply exposes the court system to charges of partisan bias, since the court has no more interest in logical redistricting than the legislature.
:( Too bad it's come to this.
Quote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 06:44:24 PM
People who don't believe that in the past, voting districts have been drawn to deliberately dilute the voting power of minorities, particularly blacks, probably shouldn't be allowed to teach school and mold young minds.
Is that straw I smell?
QuoteGranted, I agree that it would be best if district boundaries were drawn without taking race into account at all.
You really can't take subjectives into account at all. "Race" is a social construct, like "civic-mindedness." It makes as much sense, logically, to gerrymander for "civic-mindedness" as it does for "race."
I have a sideline question: is social construct theory of race widely accepted, and if it is, in what way is it different from a not social construct theory? The more I see grumbler (and only grumbler AFAIK) using "social construct", the more I'm confused about what distinction it is supposed to draw.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2011, 08:04:17 PM
I have a sideline question: is social construct theory of race widely accepted, and if it is, in what way is it different from a not social construct theory? The more I see grumbler (and only grumbler AFAIK) using "social construct", the more I'm confused about what distinction it is supposed to draw.
Check yer PMs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2011, 06:51:03 PM
I would have thought that during Jim Crow racial gerrymandering to suppress black representation was redundant. Then with the passage of the Civil Rights Act southern states at least had to get their districting plans okayed. So I'm not sure when it could have taken place.
You seem to be assuming that racial gerrymandering only happened in southern states that had Jim Crow laws.
Quote from: grumblerYou really can't take subjectives into account at all. "Race" is a social construct, like "civic-mindedness." It makes as much sense, logically, to gerrymander for "civic-mindedness" as it does for "race."
I'm sure everyone who has ever been discriminated against because of their race will be glad at race is just a social construct.
Quote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 09:49:44 PM
I'm sure everyone who has ever been discriminated against because of their race will be glad at race is just a social construct.
They will probably feel like those who have ever been discriminated against because they are "working class" or an "ivory tower intellectual." I'm not sure what "just a social construct" is supposed to imply. Are you arguing that social constructs are imaginary?
Racism certainly exists. Races, per se, do not (as biological facts). You cannot logically construct legal boundaries around a group of people based on any objective classification of them as "minorities" or "not minorities" or "black" and "white." What about a person with a "black" parent and a "white" parent? Do they count as half a minority? If they are "black" (as in the case, apparently, with Obama), what if they marry a "white" person and have kids? Are the kids then also "black" because one parent (but also only one of four grandparents) was "black?" How about someone with one "black" great-grandparent and seven "white" ones? It should be pretty obvious how silly this gets if one believes that "race" exists as an actual, inheritable biological condition. And if it doesn't so exist, then how can we create logical legal boundaries taking it into account?
This leaves out, of course, the absurdity of the assumption that the only way a "black" can get elected is by having an election district that is majority "black." That's the kind of thinkig that results in the conclusion that Obama could only have gotten elected by cheating, because the US isn't majority-"black."
Quote from: dps on December 12, 2011, 09:49:44 PM
I'm sure everyone who has ever been discriminated against because of their race will be glad at race is just a social construct.
Nationality is just a social construct and that has meant it is ok for people to drop bombs on you. Social constructs: no laughing matter.
Social construct does not mean "not real." It means (in the case of race) that there is no biological basis for it, the reality is a part of the social/cultural fabric.
It is fictive in the sense that the processes over the past few centuries have created the distinctions between human races. It is nonetheless still real as human race has real impact on members of the society, how they think, how that society makes laws, etc.
Now Grumbles said this all, but some people just ignore what he actually says at times because they like his Argument Clinic.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2011, 10:20:55 AM
Some of America does. For other parts of America, though, a logical system that maximizes population equality while retaining as much regular shape as possible is not sufficiently partisan.
What makes drawing pretty shapes on a map logical?
Quote from: KwangTiger on December 13, 2011, 10:06:49 AM
What makes drawing pretty shapes on a map logical?
Makes it easier on voters and poll workers to know they're in right place.
Quote from: grumbler on December 13, 2011, 06:51:03 AM
Races, per se, do not (as biological facts). You cannot logically construct legal boundaries around a group of people based on any objective classification of them as "minorities" or "not minorities" or "black" and "white." What about a person with a "black" parent and a "white" parent? Do they count as half a minority? If they are "black" (as in the case, apparently, with Obama), what if they marry a "white" person and have kids? Are the kids then also "black" because one parent (but also only one of four grandparents) was "black?" How about someone with one "black" great-grandparent and seven "white" ones? It should be pretty obvious how silly this gets if one believes that "race" exists as an actual, inheritable biological condition. And if it doesn't so exist, then how can we create logical legal boundaries taking it into account?
Is your point that such laws do not exist, should not exist, or exist but are not based on any objective classification? There are definitely insurance laws and regulation that have to do with disparate impact on minorities (not to mention an outright ban on rating people based on them being a minority). I'm pretty sure there are many more laws like that.
Quote from: PDH on December 13, 2011, 09:50:08 AM
Social construct does not mean "not real." It means (in the case of race) that there is no biological basis for it, the reality is a part of the social/cultural fabric.
It is fictive in the sense that the processes over the past few centuries have created the distinctions between human races. It is nonetheless still real as human race has real impact on members of the society, how they think, how that society makes laws, etc.
Now Grumbles said this all, but some people just ignore what he actually says at times because they like his Argument Clinic.
In that case, what is the relevance of that distinction? Whether race is biological or not seems to be irrelevant to any issue that I'm aware of that involves race.
I say, DG, where do you find your energy?
The relevance is that one changes over time (see views on race in 1800 vs 1880 in the USA), while one is much more fixed (I would assume that biology doesn't change that fast).
This plays a role (and makes the difference important) because a social construct become "natural" to those who are within the culture - an unchanging aspect is assumed and these drive the discussions on such things as, say, election laws. This is why race is real and at the same time not biologically real.
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2011, 11:31:25 AM
I say, DG, where do you find your energy?
In the can of Red Bull. Why do you ask?
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2011, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 11:34:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2011, 11:31:25 AM
I say, DG, where do you find your energy?
In the can of Red Bull. Why do you ask?
Red Bull = disgusting.
It's all right. When it comes to energy drinks, it's one of the most pleasant tasting, actually.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 11:38:50 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2011, 11:35:59 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 11:34:19 AM
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2011, 11:31:25 AM
I say, DG, where do you find your energy?
In the can of Red Bull. Why do you ask?
Red Bull = disgusting.
It's all right. When it comes to energy drinks, it's one of the most pleasant tasting, actually.
5 hour tastes much better and you can take it down like a shot.
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 11:39:56 AM
5 hour tastes much better and you can take it down like a shot.
God no. :yuk: It tastes like cough medicine, and has such an acrid acidic aftertaste that you can almost feel your tooth enamel dissolving.
All energy drinks taste like crap.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 11:42:42 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 11:39:56 AM
5 hour tastes much better and you can take it down like a shot.
God no. :yuk: It tastes like cough medicine, and has such an acrid acidic aftertaste that you can almost feel your tooth enamel dissolving.
False. Especially if you pour it right and most of it misses your taste buds.
That said I did just get a free sample of 50 cent's energy drink. I'm afraid to try that.
Quote from: The Brain on December 13, 2011, 11:43:26 AM
All energy drinks taste like crap.
The Jamba juice one's aren't so bad.
Rockstar Lemonade and Monster Rehab. Neither of them have the energy drink taste.
You guys ever thought of sleeping?
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 13, 2011, 01:16:09 PM
You guys ever thought of sleeping?
It's not exactly a long-term solution. I usually get tired again the next day.
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 01:22:14 PM
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 13, 2011, 01:16:09 PM
You guys ever thought of sleeping?
It's not exactly a long-term solution. I usually get tired again the next day.
Unfortunately there is only one long term solution to that particular problem. :(
Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2011, 11:44:34 AM
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 11:42:42 AM
God no. :yuk: It tastes like cough medicine, and has such an acrid acidic aftertaste that you can almost feel your tooth enamel dissolving.
False. Especially if you pour it right and most of it misses your taste buds.
He used to be able to drink 5-Hour like you, but then he took an arrow in the knee.
Quote from: Grey Fox on December 13, 2011, 01:16:09 PM
You guys ever thought of sleeping?
I'll only go out for them when it is going to be several long nights of going out back to back. Disco naps just encourage me to stay home. :weep:
Quote from: DGuller on December 13, 2011, 11:22:26 AM
Is your point that such laws do not exist, should not exist, or exist but are not based on any objective classification?
There are laws that exist, but they ban racist actions, not actions based on "race."
QuoteThere are definitely insurance laws and regulation that have to do with disparate impact on minorities (not to mention an outright ban on rating people based on them being a minority). I'm pretty sure there are many more laws like that.
These laws have to do with perceptions, not with reality in terms of who or what those people are. Thus, an insurance company can certainly deny insurance to someone, even if they are a member of a given "race." They just cannot deny it because they believe someone is a member of a given "race." The law has to do with the insurance company decision-makers perception, not the "race" of the person applying for insurance.
Disparate impact laws are more contentious, in that they are not intentional. However, the "race" qualification in Title VII is self-identification, so that's certainly a social construct. It is true that classes have been created in class action suits that don't necessarily include self-identification, but that's just an example of where laws get sticky when dealing with the perception that race exists as a biological fact. These laws and suits seem to be necessary at times when dealing with racism, so I can live with that ambiguity.
What is government if words have no meaning?
Quote from: PDH on December 13, 2011, 11:32:59 AM
The relevance is that one changes over time (see views on race in 1800 vs 1880 in the USA), while one is much more fixed (I would assume that biology doesn't change that fast).
This plays a role (and makes the difference important) because a social construct become "natural" to those who are within the culture - an unchanging aspect is assumed and these drive the discussions on such things as, say, election laws. This is why race is real and at the same time not biologically real.
But what's the relevance of that to this particular discussion? If someone was arguing that race
should be a factor that's taken into consideration in drawing congressional district borders, then I see why the question of whether or not race is biologically real or a construct would be relevant. But unless I've missed or misread some posts, no one here is arguing that--instead, anyone who has addressed the topic has said that it shouldn't be a consideration.
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 05:58:48 PM
But what's the relevance of that to this particular discussion? If someone was arguing that race should be a factor that's taken into consideration in drawing congressional district borders, then I see why the question of whether or not race is biologically real or a construct would be relevant. But unless I've missed or misread some posts, no one here is arguing that--instead, anyone who has addressed the topic has said that it shouldn't be a consideration.
I am arguing that "race" shouldn't be a consideration when drawing up congressional districts. Nor should the residences of the incumbents, nor the voting patterns of the precincts. Congressional districts should be as compact as geography and the balance of population allow. Anything else is an effort to make the franchise of some voters worth more than that of others.
Quote from: grumbler on December 13, 2011, 09:05:10 PM
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 05:58:48 PM
But what's the relevance of that to this particular discussion? If someone was arguing that race should be a factor that's taken into consideration in drawing congressional district borders, then I see why the question of whether or not race is biologically real or a construct would be relevant. But unless I've missed or misread some posts, no one here is arguing that--instead, anyone who has addressed the topic has said that it shouldn't be a consideration.
I am arguing that "race" shouldn't be a consideration when drawing up congressional districts. Nor should the residences of the incumbents, nor the voting patterns of the precincts. Congressional districts should be as compact as geography and the balance of population allow. Anything else is an effort to make the franchise of some voters worth more than that of others.
I don't disagree with any of that.
Do you agree that while that's the way it should be, it's not the case in practice in most cases?
Quote from: dps on December 13, 2011, 09:09:14 PM
Do you agree that while that's the way it should be, it's not the case in practice in most cases?
That was my original point; the Texas legislature gerrymandered to achieve a political outcome that they desired, and then the court stepped in to gerrymander in favor of the judge's desired political outcome. Both of those processes devalued the institutions involved.
Is this how it works elsewhere? Yes. Is it how is should work? No. It is the classic example of politicians finding themselves up to their ass in alligators and so so busy fighting 'gators that they forget that they were originally supposed to drain the swamp.
If my job is to drain the swamp, and I'm up to my ass in alligators, I sure as hell would fight alligators with all my energy and attention. I can't drain the swamp if I'm eaten by alligators.
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2011, 12:14:12 PM
If my job is to drain the swamp, and I'm up to my ass in alligators, I sure as hell would fight alligators with all my energy and attention. I can't drain the swamp if I'm eaten by alligators.
They could just get a long pipe and do it from a safe distance rather than jumping in to wrestle alligators.
Quote from: Tyr on December 15, 2011, 06:54:34 PM
Quote from: DGuller on December 14, 2011, 12:14:12 PM
If my job is to drain the swamp, and I'm up to my ass in alligators, I sure as hell would fight alligators with all my energy and attention. I can't drain the swamp if I'm eaten by alligators.
They could just get a long pipe and do it from a safe distance rather than jumping in to wrestle alligators.
Is that how you drain a swamp? I thought you dug trenches and stuff. You know, diverting rivers and streams and stuff.