Gerrymandered

M

munk

Joined
Mar 22, 2002
Messages
15,742
Well, looks like everyone 2 miles south of the County seat was redistricted last election cycle. Most of them, like me, will be finding out this November 7th.
I guess it's just life. Democrats in- new districts. Republicans in, new districts. I know I should have been more aware of what was going on, though shouts and complaints would have accomplished nothing. Montana, like much of the West, has a Democratic Party Goverment. For years, tax funds from Washington were more on the dollar than ever paid in. It was a sweetheart deal for the Rural West. And in case this is not understood, the newspapers are liberal, even here.


There's some irony here too; the heavily conservative ranching and farming areas of my County are now attached to the local Indian Reservation district.
That is pure democrat land. The local state rep has a NRA rating of F. He runs unopposed. The Reservation votes as a solid block democratic.

ABout the only hope I have is in looking for a Dixiecrat- a fiscally conservative Democrat who favors gun rights and family values. It could happen, you never know. For that to happen, though, the local Congressmen would have to retire. He does not run unopposed for no reason.

Life is funny. I'm not the only American whose vote is now unimportant, at least locally.
In truth, when I lived in the big City, I was probably in districts I could not influence as well.

munk
 
So sorry.........It's hell thinkin' yer vote don't count for squat. I wish you could up and move back across the new line! I'm just waiting to vote.....conservative (but the man, not the party).
 
I don't think I've yet voted for someone who won. Ever.

But increasingly, my vote still isn't wasted. Canada's federal parties can't accept big contributions anymore - from corps, or unions, or 3rd parties. Citizen donations only, and only up to a certain level.

But some tax dollars now go to the federal parties, reflecting the proportion of the popular vote they received in the previous election. Private money now has less political pull, and fewer politicians will be beholden to private interests. It will be fascinating to see how it plays out over time.

t.
 
Sounds like time for Munk to run for office. I'm in. Munk for congress!
 
A guy I knew in College used to think someone should run on the Free beer ticket.
I always thought a SKS for every man, woman and child living in the Continental United States would be good. ( The gov destroyed at lot of its own surplus and could no longer arm its citizens with US made) But a khuk in ever willing hand, a revolver in the other, and a semi auto by the Kitchen door would be good too.

I think the redistricting was done to remove a conservative swath, put it where it could do no harm, and increase the odds in a close election year, like this one, that the Malta district would go democratic. The towns tend to have slightly higher registered Democrats than the ranch lands.

The Commision will not meet again for 8 years.


munk
 
Yep. It was the same for me when I moved back to Ohio - hmm, seem to remember a song by that name. Anyway, my county (mostly Repulsivan) was joined to another county (mostly duma**cr*p) and there was another county between us. We were joined by a narrow band through a third county. Yeah, it really was that twisted and confusing. The end result was that my county was swallowed up by the other county, so we effectively had no representation. The Repulsivans took over the whole state government, so we got re-districted after the 2000 census. Now, we actually are joined with counties that we should have been connected to all along. We actually have a semi-decent representative as well.
 
Hey Munk,

What's Tester's take on guns?

I personally think we have to SERIOUSLY reconsider this whole districting process. I think it needs to be laid out on some sort of a grid and leave it!

However I'm reading that the redistricting in MT had to do with losing population and some suit the Native Americans filed? Also I rather than the legislature like TX I read this:

The process has been less partisan than in many states. District lines are actually drawn by nonpartisan researchers with guidance from the commission. The only anticipated concern is protecting the seven large Indian reservations in the state from minority vote dilution. Montana lost a district after the 1990 census and now elects its representative at-large.

The state has swung strongly to Republicans in the state legislature in the last decade. There is only one U.S. House district despite the fact that the state's population likely will top one million by 2010.
Click to expand...
 
I don't know in practice, but on paper Montana's method sounds pretty good

11. Montana


Origin: In 1984, Montana voters passed a constitutional amendment transferring congressional and legislative redistricting authority to a Redistricting Commission(RC) of five citizens, "none of whom may be public officials."


Members: Following the decennial federal census, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate must choose one member each, and those four citizens select a fifth citizen to be chair. RC members may not run for election to a legislative seat within two years of the RC plan becoming effective.



Funding: Upon request, states agencies must provide technical assistance and consulting personnel to the RC.



Criteria: The RC must hold at least one public hearing on the legislative redistricting plan which must be at the state capitol. The RC plan must consist of districts that are of compact and contiguous territory, and as nearly equal in population as is practicable.

Once the RC approves a final redistricting plan, it must be submit that plan to the legislature, at its first regular session, for recommendations; the plan, along with the legislature's recommendation, then must be returned to the RC, who must file the final plan with the Secretary of State upon which filing, the redistricting plan becomes law.



Montana's RC does not draw congressional districts because Montana has only one member in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Click to expand...

So sounds like Montana's system would greatly reduce, if not eliminate gerrymandering especially this part:

The RC plan must consist of districts that are of compact and contiguous territory, and as nearly equal in population as is practicable.
 
Every vote counts!

You are particpating in the process.
I'd rather people vote and complain about the outcome than live in a monarchy and not have the option to vote at all.

It pisses me off that only about 1/3 of the people will even bother to vote.
 
Voter apathy is a huge problem, if you dont like the candidates spoil your ballot or vote for one of the ridiculous parties (the liberal party in canada).But if you dont vote just out of lazyness or apathy you have no right to complain that your voice is not heard. The true meaning of democracy, rule by those not to lazy to vote every few years.
 
Hollow, the Russian Constitution used to sound great...on paper. The Commision responds to the same infighting and pull humans do everywhere. The republican rep we all loved, out of Glasgow, is gone, he has no district at all now.
I'm not sure why the NRA gives Tester an A. I mean...he's not really 'tested'. But Burns has an A+ and gets their nod.

Tester is sounding like an old fashioned Dixiecrat. Strong on gun rights, want's low taxes...my problem is that if with a Democratic Senate he will be unable to stick to those things. But I dunno. He's better than just a loss if Burns should lose. I think Burns is 3 points down.

Bill Richardson gets an NRA A+ in New Mexico. This is fascinating. I don't like BR; his view on Iraq and my own would depart rapidly from one another; but he did help get concealed carry in his state, and he is for gun rights. Go figure.


This is going to be an interesting election. I think the Republicans will hold the Senate, and I'm hoping they hold Congress.
But every year the Republicans are down in the polls, and they win, and pundits and political scientists come up with explanations. This time though, may be the end.
Hey, that's the future: what can I do?

My guys haven't arrived yet; Liberatarians who piss both sides off on moral grounds, are for individual responsibility and the least government possible, but who aren't absolutists; like those demanding an open border now.


munk


munk
 
This is one of my favorite quotes about the fate of democracy -

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world�s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage. - usually attributed to Tytler
Click to expand...

As long as we continue to care, we still have a chance. We're at 230 years and still going. All the best.

Mark
 
munk said:
Hollow, the Russian Constitution used to sound great...on paper. The Commision responds to the same infighting and pull humans do everywhere. Tester is sounding like an old fashioned Dixiecrat. Strong on gun rights, want's low taxes...my problem is that if with a Democratic Senate he will be unable to stick to those things. But I dunno. He's better than just a loss if Burns should lose. I think Burns is 3 points down.

Bill Richardson gets an NRA A+ in New Mexico. This is fascinating. I don't like BR; his view on Iraq and my own would depart rapidly from one another; but he did help get concealed carry in his state, and he is for gun rights. Go figure.


This is going to be an interesting election. I think the Republicans will hold the Senate, and I'm hoping they hold Congress.
But every year the Republicans are down in the polls, and they win, and pundits and political scientists come up with explanations. This time though, may be the end.
Hey, that's the future: what can I do?

My guys haven't arrived yet; Liberatarians who piss both sides off on moral grounds, are for individual responsibility and the least government possible, but who aren't absolutists; like those demanding an open border now.


munk


munk
Click to expand...


Munk,

But the system you all have sounds way better than say Texas at least, and it was a plan voted on by the public so that's a plus.


I think the phenomenon you are noticing is because of Howard Dean's 50 state strategy. His plan was to start fielding candidates in every race even ones not likely to be won. This means that by and large the Dems in more rural areas will reflect their constituencies rather than the straight party platform. There are lots of pro gun rights dems running this time, a few pro life ones, but most are with the national party on stuff like outsourcing of jobs, pension protection, social security and not running up debt.

You mention Bill Richardson. He's a free trade guy, which I don't like, but I like a lot of other things about him. The gun thing for sure is a plus. Another example of him reflecting his constituency.
 
munk said:
I'm not sure why the NRA gives Tester an A. I mean...he's not really 'tested'. But Burns has an A+ and gets their nod.

Tester is sounding like an old fashioned Dixiecrat. Strong on gun rights, want's low taxes...my problem is that if with a Democratic Senate he will be unable to stick to those things. But I dunno. He's better than just a loss if Burns should lose. I think Burns is 3 points down.

munk
Click to expand...

That's why I am no longer an NRA member. Here in WV we had a Democrat with top rating by the NRA who was "tested" in the state senate, versus a republican who was unproven. The Democrat was a self made man, lawyer whose dad was a garbage collector. The Republican was the daughter of our former indicted republican governor and the wife of a doctor.

The NRA should have sat out the election, since both candidates were equal but they always go with the republican.

I am totally for the NRA supporting whoever has the best record, but IMO they favor the GOP even when the facts show the candidates are the same.

I read this this morning:

HELENA, Mont.-- Some newspaper subscribers in Montana will find their Election Day papers wrapped in a political advertisement.

The National Rifle Association said Monday it is buying plastic bag "wrap" advertising in seven or eight Montana newspapers to show support for Republican Sen. Conrad Burns, who is in a tight race for re-election. Only some of those newspapers will be wrapped in the advertising on Election Day and others will be delivered earlier with the ad wrapping, said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam.

The campaign of Democratic challenger Jon Tester said sending newspapers out in a bag emblazoned with pro-Burns language on Election Day could confuse readers.

"It runs the risk of an implied endorsement from the newspaper," said Tester spokesman Matt McKenna....

Arulanandam said the NRA expects to reach 120,000 to 150,000 households in Montana. He refused to say which papers will use the ad wrap on Election Day and which will use it earlier....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_di...
"The Founding Fathers gave the press Constitutional protection
Click to expand...

Isn't Burns the one that took all the money from Abramoff who was wanting him to vote against a fair wage and working standards for American workers????
 
Yes, but Burns has been a leader on gun rights in national office. Tester and he are not 'equal'.

NRA supports many democrats. If there are so few, it is because in general the party is anti gun. In fact, on the national level, their platform is for new gun control measures. Just ask Nancy Pelosi.




munk
 
munk said:
Yes, but Burns has been a leader on gun rights in national office. Tester and he are not 'equal'.

NRA supports many democrats. If there are so few, it is because in general the party is anti gun. In fact, on the national level, their platform is for new gun control measures. Just ask Nancy Pelosi.

munk
Click to expand...

Yeah but only if you are a one issue voter like you.


Seems like when it is business versus the public good Burns always votes with business.

Voted NO on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (Sep 2000
Voted NO on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (Mar 2005)
Voted NO on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)

Votes against American workers:

Voted NO on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (Mar 2001)
Voted YES on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (Nov 1999)
Voted YES on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (May 1997)

Voted to sell their jobs out:

Voted YES on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (Jul 2003)
Voted YES on extending free trade to Andean nations. (May 2002)
Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (Oct 2001)
Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (Sep 2001)
Voted YES on permanent normal trade relations with China. (Sep 2000)
Voted YES on expanding trade to the third world. (May 2000)

With for more gov't spying
Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (Oct 2001)

But no to adding more police to make the US safer:
Voted NO on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (May 1999)

Voted against renewable sources of energy that would help small businesses and farmers:

Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (Jun 1999)
Voted YES on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (Aug 1994)

So for me I'd rather have the A rating and get some support for clean energy and American Jobs than the A+ and have our jobs sold out and our atmosphere polluted.

Plus the guy changed his vote after Abramoff gave him 5000 dollars

The 2001 bill dealt with labor and immigration controls in the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands, a group of 14 islands between Hawaii and the Philippines controlled by the United States. The bill grew out of reports that many workers in the islands' garment industry were Chinese immigrants earning less than the U.S. minimum wage. Because the islands are a U.S. territory, their products can be sold in the United States with a "Made in U.S.A." label.

That year, the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association hired Abramoff as a lobbyist, records show. Saipan is one of the larger islands in the Commonwealth of Northern Marianas Islands.

Abramoff's lobby registration shows the association hired him to "prevent enactment of legislation to impose federal control over local labor and immigration rules."

The same document lists Shawn Vassell, Burns' former state staff director, as a lobbyist on the issue. Vassell worked for Abramoff at the Greenberg Traurig lobbying firm.

On April 20, 2001, Eloy Inos of Saipan donated $5,000 to Friends of the Big Sky, Burns' political action committee, federal campaign finance records show. Inos listed his employer as Tan Holdings.

Tan Holdings owns, among other things, garment manufacturing facilities on the Marianas Islands. It is a member of the Saipan Garment Manufacturers Association, according to the company's Web site.

On May 23, 2001, the bill again came before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee for a vote. In an unusual move, Burns requested that each member's vote be recorded - a so-called roll call vote. Often, committee votes are voice votes, in which there is no record of how each member voted.

Burns' roll call request meant that his vote would be a part of the public record.

This time, Burns voted against the bill. He was one of four committee members to do so.

The vote came one month and three days after the Burns PAC received the $5,000 donation.
Click to expand...


This is cute too. Burns consistently votes against spending to help poor and working class people for instance:

Voted YES on limiting self-employment health deduction. (Jul 1999)

While at the same time:

In 2003, Burns helped one of Abramoff's tribal clients, the Saginaw Chippewa tribe in Michigan, obtain a $3 million congressional grant to build a school. Because of its Indian gambling, the tribe is one of the richest nationally and makes annual payments of $70,000 to each member.

Burns received $136,500, more than any other lawmaker, from Abramoff's tribal clients from 2001 to 2004, a Bloomberg News database shows.
Click to expand...

www.ontheissues.org

http://www.billingsgazette.com/newd.../2005/12/03/build/state/25-burns-donation.inc
 
Hollow, I'm voting for Burns, and don't for a second believe the unilateral view you've submitted is 'truth'.
And I'm not a one issue voter; I just don't simplify the universe into the same form as yourself.

I've seen hit sheets like you posted on every candidate, Dem and Rep.
For instance, there are no 'corporate tax loopholes' as used in your attack ad against Burns, and I don't believe for a second he is for terrorists. Simplify, dehumanize, destroy.

The sheer amount of post is enough to convince me these are not issues but talking points.



munk
 
munk said:
Hollow, I'm voting for Burns, and don't for a second believe the unilateral view you've submitted is 'truth'.
And I'm not a one issue voter; I just don't simplify the universe into the same form as yourself.

I've seen hit sheets like you posted on every candidate, Dem and Rep.
For instance, there are no 'corporate tax loopholes' as used in your attack ad against Burns, and I don't believe for a second he is for terrorists. Simplify, dehumanize, destroy.

The sheer amount of post is enough to convince me these are not issues but talking points.



munk
Click to expand...

Hey, refute me! Here's the website www.ontheissues.org.

I'm just saying I'd rather vote for somebody with a good stance on guns who stands up for the American worker than somebody who can be bought.

Burns obviously votes based on who give him money. Even when it's against his own Montanans.

You said

I don't believe for a second he is for terrorists
Click to expand...

I think you must have misunderstood the bill.

He wasn't voting for terrorists. He was voting for business. If a business has a link to terrorisim he voted against penalizing them.

This is a pattern with Burns, if it comes down to the public good, versus business he will vote with business. Nothing wrong with that. I mean the guy even voted against the Bipartisan Mc Cain Feingold act, so he LOVES his corporate money!!:thumbup:

If you can morally justify voting for him good for you:D I'm not dehumanizing him. Greed is a very human trait.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top