7 Comments

Redistricting: "Frankly, all states should have independent, non-partisan commissions doing the mapping." Really, Isaac? When was any state commission ever independent and non-partisan? Gerrymandering defines communities (of voters) that are not bounded mainly by geography; they are bounded also by shared spirit and a sense of belonging. It is a reasonable way to partition the electorate. Alternately, we could let a computer algorithm draw the lines, but I think I would put more faith in the commission to get it right.

Expand full comment

Shawn, while I agree that creating an "independent, non-partisan commission" is a difficult if not altogether impossible prospect, I don't agree with your assertion that the rampant gerrymandering that defines our political landscape is reasonable. Are you really going to look at a map of Texas's 2nd Congressional District and tell me that those voters are bound by a shared spirit and sense of belonging? Michigan's 14th? Maryland's 3rd?

Expand full comment

You are right, of course, and I do not disagree, but rather, I am taking a philosophical approach. The main problem with majority rule is that the majority, however slim, rules absolutely. As someone who has almost always been in the minority, I like to envision a better world where I can have at least some impact, however small. America, today, is not such a place.

Expand full comment

Packing similar voters in to one district is only one aspect of gerrymandering. Splitting up groups of voters to thin out the vote is another. Wouldn't it be more reasonable to represent a geographical area where the people that live and work in the same area and have similar challenges and concerns?

Expand full comment

Yes, when that works, but what if you have a group of voters, united by culture or religion or even race, who deserve to be represented, but cannot be, because their vote is diluted in the larger community that they are spread out within? Two centuries ago, de Tocqueville called this "The Tyranny of the Majority" and considered it to be a major flaw in American democracy. Sometimes it seems even more so today. By gerrymandering them into a district that is defined ethnically, rather than geographically, we can perhaps give such voters the small voice at the polls that they deserve.

Expand full comment

Although I do agree that all citizens do deserve a voice I find the idea of seperation into groups based on ethnicity disturbing to say the least. I believe it is up to the duly elected representatives of diverse districts to find the balance for common good. If you have a district that was carved out of 10 neighborhoods over half the city how do you serve the head and tail of this snake like monstrosity fairly?

And I will reiterate that a lot of gerrymandering does entail splitting up voting blocks to dilute them such as cutting university campuses in half and thus stealing their voice.

I understand your hesitance at having an independent commission draw the boundaries. But for instance Elections Canada has a fantastic record of non biased election security. However it is an independent federal agency and in this climate of states' rights and responsibilities I can't see something like that being adopted.

I do appreciate your stance on the tyranny of the majority but I feel that current gerrymandering practices are a tyranny of the established minority.

Expand full comment

Isaac, I will begin by admitting to my ignorance and much needed education for myself on the bills which you mentioned in "A Story That Matters" in today's edition. But, on their face, I'm thankful to hear that the horrible behavior shown by so many protestors called attention to the need to guard against that type of disrespectful and cruel behavior to protect innocent citizens. I STILL have a visceral reaction when I think of how selfish and self-serving some of the protestors were in caring less about those in their community so devastatingly affected. So much hard work destroyed in only moments.

I watched with horror as I witnessed the burning of communities, police precincts and privately owned businesses across our nation in the name of "peaceful protests". I still find myself so confused that there was not a much larger outcry for the harm that was done during these disappointing and heart-breaking episodes.

I fully support our citizens' right to Protest "Peacefully" WITHOUT INFRINGING ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS or acting in ways that make people fear for their safety. I find this an acceptable and effective way to have our voices heard. But...

It is very seldom that I find myself TRULY ANGRY, but as I watched Protestors, whose CLAIM was that they were representing those who suffered INJUSTICES at the hands of our government, while burning businesses that were someone's lifelong dream, hard-earned over many years, I was VERY ANGRY (righteously so) at the hypocrisy being displayed. To this day I have heard no adequate explanation or ownership of responsibility of what was so unfairly done to those communities and business owners.

And please, I could care less about "statistics" in this instance; those were PEOPLE whose lives were badly affected at the hands of those ANGRY and INSENSITIVE to the pain they were inflicting on people in their own community! How can that type of behavior ever be justified⁉️ I felt so heartbroken for those who were the victims of these irresponsible, insensitive and destructive mobs. They were NOT Peaceful Protestors.

And yes, of course not everyone there went with the intention of seeing the destruction that ensured. I find it very difficult to believe that they were totally ignorant of what their ANGER and INCITEMENT might result in. Was there ANY attempt to impose expectations on those protesting from the "Leadership"? It certainly did not appear to be an important part of the reporting. Other than distancing themselves from any responsibility for the mayhem and destruction that took place, I saw no one stand up and apologize for the "collateral damage". If I missed it, please guide me to resources which, even after the fact, will help me to feel a bit better about the whole sad situation.

If I had seen organizers that spoke more like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in their delivery and direction to those who they were leading to protest, then I would have had more confidence that they had given direction for more peaceful protest, thus better able to believe that "outsiders" were causing the problems. But, sadly, that is not what I witnessed. There was so much hate and venom in what I witnessed from the loudest voices.

Don't misunderstand me. I understand how bad players can come in and take advantage of the situation, but the attitude and rhetoric of those leading the protests led me to be doubtful that they cared more for those so devastatingly affected BIGGEST LOSERS from the protest, to speak out and condemn what was happening. That, too, is INJUSTICE.

We, as a, one time, Christian Nation, have always taught to help those in need, those disadvantaged, forgive one another, turn the other check because we are all sinners. Sin is visible and rampant in many sectors of our society. I, like all humans, need forgiveness for my selfish actions and attitudes and am thankful for those who love me enough to forgive and trust me to do better in the future.

But, it seems that we often take this guidance to an extreme when we attempt charitable understanding, but the "sinners" show no interest in seeing their own selfish and uncharitable actions as a problem for others. If it takes Congress to pass Bills that discourage INCIVILITY toward the rest of society, then so be it. Bullying has no place in Civil Society; we already have too much of that in our schools.

Expand full comment