chrisishardcore.com

I'm on your side, Chris. I think the argument that "you guys did it, now it's our turn" is a stupid childish point of view. As a voter, that leaves me unimpressed. I don't want partisan war, I want good government.

In fact voter reform is one of my big interests; how redistricting can realistically be made more fair, reforming or eliminating the Electoral College, and Diebold versus some other form. I'm very interested in your views on these issues.

However, I'm not sure I agree that the Democratic party is doing a good job at reaching out to voters. I was a little disappointed with the lack of exciting candidates for the Senate. I was prepared to work on the campaign of the candidate, hoping that a hot Senate race would allow us to create some democratic buzz in the state. Denise is a very nice woman, I voted for her and encouraged others to vote for her too, but I felt she was a little under credentialed for the job. I've wondered why Sam Nunn's daughter didn't run or possibly Chip Carter. I have this sinking feeling that it didn't poll well, so instead of stepping forward, the real talent held back.

There were a few other things that bothered me too, symbolic of the lack of connection the Democratic party has out here in the nether lands. There is something called the Moonshine Festival up here; it's the biggest event in the town of Dawsonville. People come from all over the state, but especially North Georgia, to attend. Being Dawson County, of course it's half a car show and that draws people from everywhere.

There was a huge Bush/Cheney booth at the festival set prominently in the main through-way with a pretty little Republican Barbie handing out literature. The Democrats were nowhere to be seen.

I know your party has done good work for us. I know, because I'm interested in these things, and I've sought out that knowledge. (It takes a really stinky Democrat to make me vote Republican.) I'm worried though, that on the ground level of the every day citizen, the Democrats have become invisible.

I still find it amusing that you want to be "fair and impartial" when you lose power. You claim that the winning party, doing what is their perogative, is being childish.

Hardly. Redistricting has been part of governing for as long as this country has been in existence.

Fine, you argued against it. I'm still at a loss as to how you are going to define fair and who will be the arbiter. And let's not use what didn't happen in 2004 as an example of how the Democrats are so "fair". How many times did they redistrict to procect their power base in the past?

I see no way you could use criteria like incumbency, county lines, political competetiveness to be part of the process at all.

So, how do you draw the lines? You can't define "fair" because you are trying to make a political process apolitical.

The people elect who they want to govern. Redistricting is part of governing. Don't like it you have two choices. Go to the courts if the process violates law or win contol through the political process.

It can be done. Republicans did it even through many years of Democratic redistricting.

Tings, glad to see some mention of the good ol' Moonshine Festival on here...If you went to it, that "moonshine still" right next to the Courthouse was constructed by my Uncle (keep you redneck jokes to yourselves)...yes, I've been to that dang thing so many times - I can't stand to go anymore...but you made a great point about the GOP/Dem. differences on the local levels...the local State Senate race is the perfect example - Chip Pearson won by a huge margin, but he won over a very "conservative" Democrat in Bobby Adams...a Democrat that not only lived in White County, but taught school in Lumpkin County for 30+ years..so his name was pretty commonplace in two of the districts counties already...so why did he lose so badly? B/c the State Democratic Party looked at that district, figured it was too Republican to win, and simply gave up...Pearson got multiple thousands of dollars from the GOP, and from other Republican Senators and Rep's....but Adams only got $1700 from three local/county Dem. parties (and $1000 from the former Democratic Incumbent of that district)...he had no help..now, he probably would have lost anyway, but at least he would have had a fighting chance to win (But I've got to say, Chip Pearson is a fine, hard working man, and I'm proud that he's going to be representing us in the Senate).

Tings, you might want to check on GRID (Greens, Independents, Republicans, and Democrats) - It's a "political gathering" that was orginally designed for the purpose of being "anti-Bush"...Now, I happen to respect and whole heartedly support our President, but I thought I'd pass along this info to you since you have been searching for some local political outlets - you may already be involved with them, or they may not even exist anymore since the elections are over, but the contact is: Bob Barton, 706-865-1262..if you're interested you could check with him and see what their deal is...I'd also encourage being on the lookout for Dawson GOP meetings...you might not be a Republican, but if you want to have any influence on politics in Dawson Co., the GOP is basically the "only show in town" as you've seen already.

Finally, for Chris and all, the whole redistricting issue is not really an issue...except for Congressional districts. The GOP is not going to bother changing House/Senate districts that are already going their way, and will only continue to do so as southern GA Dem's retire...they don't want to be involved in the litigation for those maps again...but the Congressional districts, now that's probably another story...if I were John Barrow I'd rent, not buy in D.C....I mean honestly, look at the maps, tell me they're not screwed up...they're completely "shady" and gerrymandered...I did my thesis over redistricting, I talked to Dem's and Rep's that all told me about C. Walkers and R. Barnes agendas in drawing the Congressional maps...it's no secret what they were in to achieve...these maps must be changed to something that looks at least halfway decent.

One final comment...while I tend not to be a proponent of "we'll screw you, b/c you screwed us"...I agree with Davenfl...it would probably be justice for the GOP to "screw" the Democrats over the next 20 years....but I don't think they're going to...I would hope that they were "above" this (but I realize it's politics, so they're not)..but I don't think they will, because for the most part, Republicans have absolutely nothing more to gain...this state is theirs to lose from now until the Dem. party changes its entire direction, so why would they risk pissing of more people (now urban Atlanta might suffer, b/c well, we all know there's no chance of those districts going Republican - EVER)

So, while we all debate the "fairness" of Gerrymandering here's an historical aside.

Gerrymandering was invented by Elbridge Gerry in 1812. Governor of Massachussetts, Vice President of the United States and co-signer of the Declaration of Independance.

In 1967, Congress passed a law requiring all U.S. representatives to be elected from single member districts—the system we use today. Congress in 1982 amended the Voting Rights Act to protect the voting rights of protected racial minorities in redistricting. Within those laws, states have great leeway to draw districts, which often leads to gerrymandering.

Until Tuesday November 5, 2002, the Democratic Party in Georgia enjoyed the longest period of consecutive, one party jurisdictional domination for any party in any jurisdiction in the entire western hemisphere. That is from the southern tip of Tierra del Fuego to the North Pole. This streak lasted from 1872 until 2003.

In 2001 the Georgia democrats passed one of the most severe redistricting maps. Even Roll Call magazine called the congressional gerrymander in Georgia the most political gerrymander in the entire country. The Democrats split 110 precincts statewide in doing so. The Democrats obviously used computer modeling designing these districts.

Didn't work though because the Republicans soundly defeated the democrats. The Georgia upsets on election night embody the depth of the Republican Party victories nationwide. Not only did the Republicans unseat an incumbent U.S. Senator, and an incumbent state governor. They also defeated the state senate majority leader as well. Before the night was over the Republicans beat the longest sitting state house speaker in the entire nations’ history, Tom Murphy from Bremen, Georgia. He presided over the Georgia state legislature for thirty years.

So, can you possibly understand why, a little over two years, later it is hard to hold credible any Democrat statement calling for an end to the process of gerrymandering?

That just about sums it up perfectly. If you were to research Georgia Redistricting...it all comes down to basically what he davenfl just wrote (with the exception that Democrats accidently almost screwed themselves up when they created too many "Majority-Minority" districts, thereby weakening Democratic presence in some other districts). Good research and a very good point.

Not to beat a dead horse (or donkey, sorry couldn't resist) but you mentioned that when the Dems redistricted in 2001 you were in the minorityin that party since they redistricted over your objections.

The conclusion I draw is that you are in a very small minority of those who might thing gerrymandering is truly not "fair." I come to this by noting that you were in the minority of Dems then (and I suspect a very small minority). Add that to the assumption that the majority of Republicans (while they may not gerrymander) believe it fully in their right, as specified under Georgia law, to do so.

So, add the Dem minority against redistricting in 2001 together with the Repub minority against redistricting and I bet that it is a pretty small group.

No fair counting Dems who have newly converted to the no-gerrymandering fairness doctrine.

davenfl

You have misunderstood my objection to your argument. I am opposed to the present pratice of gerrymandering no matter which party is in power. I think it is a bad policy to allow those with self-interest in the results to manipulate the districts. I favor a bipartisan panel with judicial oversight, and I favored this when the Democrats held the majority. I don't find historical precedent a compelling reason to continue a bad practice. History is full of bad policies that we have abandoned - slavery for instance. As a voter interested in good government, not someone of the political class, I remain unimpressed by your "Tit for Tat" statement. I also think you are rude to imply that any non Republican with an objection to gerrymandering is only doing so out of sour grapes over the result of this one election. That simplistic us versus them viewpoint is the reason that our nation is in crisis.

cbeardon

Thanks again for the information. The GRID site hasn't been updated since the election, but it is still up and has contact data.

I did see your uncle's still at the festival. I come from a long line of Tennessee ridge runners myself. I don't think any of our stills survived though. My great grandmother took an axe to all the ones she could find.

Well Chris, I'm not meaning to be rude. I don't know you from Adam so the only basis I have to judge is historical precedent and current context. You are a Democrat. I know that Democrats practice Gerrymandering and blah, blah, blah. It just looks awful suspiscious that, after a election where your side was resoundingly defeated, the first thing I read from you is a call to quit Gerrymandering.

Further to historical precedent. I agree it isn't always an indicator of good. However, our political system has worked well historically and is working well now. Part of that history is Gerrymandering. Frankly I am loath to change things without a good understanding of what we are changing to.

You say a fair and impartial panel? I say baloney, can't find one. Look at the 911 Commission? That certainly wasn't fair and impartial from either side. More ass covering going on there than worry about the real truth. Politics is pervasive in our culture and for anyone to think otherwise is nieve.

Perhaps one day we might have a fair and impartial computer program that could take into consideration all the factors but we are a long way from that now.

Just how far are you willing to go to eliminate "tit-for-tat"? How about government jobs where they are designated as political appointees? Those that serve at the pleasure of the elected (president, governor, whatever).

If we eliminate all the "tit-fot-tat" and "political spoils" then why do we even have political parties? Eliminate the concept and just have everyone run as individuals on their own merits?

I also note that the use of terms like "tit-for-tat" and "political spoils" have negative connotations. I don't look at them, a priori, as being bad. They are part of a system of government that has worked well for us.

Just why do you think our nation is in crisis? More of that "deeply divided" line of thought? I don't buy into that either. Not more deeply divided than when in the civil war. Not more deeply divided than the 60's when we had open rioting. We have had nastier elections than this.

I think what we are going through is great for our nation. People are interested, engaged. It means a lot to them.

I have read a lot of hard-core liberal blogs and I understand why they think the nation is in crisis. They believe Bush and the Republicans are the devil incarnate (only they don't believe in the devil).

You are probably going to think this is rude too but I believe the American public spoke resoundingly that they want the government to be more conservative and run by Republicans. Add that to the obvious shift of the electorate from democrat to republican. The result is that the democrats now think the nation is in crisis. Personally, I just think the Democrat party is in crisis.

Now, if you told me the Dems were disbanding and we were going to a one-party system then I would agree. But that's not going to happen. Its just your turn to play the opposition role for a while. If you define that as a crisis then so be it.

Most Americans don't agree.

Chris did not address those remarks that you are quoting in your reply. I did - tings.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: