Any way, you linked to the following site today as a place for Republican talking points of note. That got my interest so I clicked:
-------
http://www.courreges.us/
Myths of the Democratic walkout
Myth: Republicans are only trying to pass redistricting because they can't win fairly.
Reality: The current US House districts are still gerrymandered from 1992, when Texas Democrats rammed through redistricting after waiving the two-thirds requirement. Accordingly, they are still tilted in favor of Democratic candidates. This is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Republicans recieved 56% of the vote overall in Congressional elections in 2002, and yet they make up less than 47% of the congressional seats. That, my friends, is unfair.
-------
If you check the comments section on that site you'll see that I tried to engage the Courreges folks in a bit of civil dialog, but I really didn't get very far.
The point I was hoping to discuss is as follows: There's plenty of arguments to be made as to why the United States, the State of Texas, or Texas Congressional District XYZ might be better off with Republican representation. Of course you and I know that all those arguments are dead wrong, but this 56%/47% deal is worse than wrong. In fact, it's a patently bogus set of numbers. And it irks me to see it repeated all over the place.
To illustrate, let's imagine a football team with a ten game season. They lose the first nine games, each by a score of 27-24. In the last game, with the season basically over and the championship already decided, the other
team just mails it in, and our boys roll to a 50-0 victory.
The athletic director takes a long look at that 1-9 record and starts poking around for a new coach. The coach protests, "Unfair! Look at the season point totals: 266 for us, 243 for our opponents. That means we scored 52% of the total points. If we hadn't gotten screwed by the refs, we should have won over half our games. In fact, in consideration of equity and ethics, I think I deserve a raise."
Maybe we can label this the John Mackovic Defense, and it sounds a little nutty to me. But while we're playing with numbers, let's look at the 2000 election, in District 7, where John Culberson chalked up 89% of the vote.
In stark contrast, his Democratic opponent got... well, actually he didn't have a Democratic opponent. At the same time Lloyd Doggett's Republican challenger couldn't even beat the Libertarian candidate--partly because in Lloyd Doggett's district there was no Republican challenger on the ballot.
And while Chet Edwards was fighting tooth and nail for 51.55%, a couple Valley races were conducted in the grand Soviet tradition of one party, one candidate, 100% plurality.
I'd suggest that these minor details have major implications for that great unmentionable of electoral data points: voter turnout.
I'd also argue that it's grossly misleading to add up all the votes cast in such wildly divergent situations and to then conclude, "Aha! Republicans got 56% of the vote, therefore they're entitled to 56% of the seats." I don't doubt that 56% is an accurate sum. And it certainly sounds precise. You know, not 55%, not 57%, but 56%. Maybe it's even 56.73%. But it's precisely meaningless when used to evaluate statewide election results as a whole. In fact, it's no more a proper use of statistics than say, using Al Gore's popular vote total to decide the Presidential race.
What Courreges's little piece of Republican spin advocates is nothing less than proportional representation. In other words, they're suggesting that the votes cast for or against Congressman Smith (D) be given some weight in determining the fate of Congressman Jones (R). Maybe it's a good idea, maybe it's not, but it's certainly one that puts them in exactly the same camp as the Green Party and the glorious & honorable nation of (ahem) France.
Unfortunately it puts them exactly at odds with the Constitution of the United States. And it's why this fight goes beyond blocker bills, Senate tradition, or whether David Dewhurst is as nice (or as nasty) as Bob Bullock. Because if they really believe what they're saying, it means that Tom DeLay thinks the Founding Fathers were a little confused in structuring the federal government and that he's got a few ideas on how to tighten things up a bit. That, my friends, is pretty damn scary.
Oh well. Thanks for listening. Y'all keep up the good work. Hope you're enjoying the summer. I'm counting the days until the UT-New Mexico State game which now seems a somewhat ironic way to open the season.
More editorials:
The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal calls Governor Perry a disappointment and compares him to a "spoiled 2-year-old child".
The Chron calls the endless fight for redistricting madness.
The Waco Trib really smacks the Governor, whom they call a "well-pressed con man". This needs some quoting:
How hypocritical is Perry in light of the partisan meltdown over redistricting? Let us count the ways.
----1. His silence was deafening----
Perry speaks now about $800 million in newly freed-up money that could go to human services if the Democrats would only come back. What was he saying during Special Session No. 1? Nothing.
[...]
If Perry really wanted to direct $800 million to social services, all he had to do was put it on the agenda. Instead, legislation he supported would have routed the extra money into an "emergency fund" under the control of the governor and the Legislative Budget Board.
Just how many Texans would benefit from that, Mr. Governor?
----2. He dropped ball in 2001----
Perry is the very last person on the planet to be saying, "It is lawmakers' responsibility, not the courts', to redraw congressional lines." That responsibility sat snugly in his lap in 2001. He brushed it off like lint.
[...]
----3. He would dispense with rules----
Whenever Perry uses the words "fair" or "fairness," he isn't thinking that way when it comes to the legislative process and redistricting.
Harsh.
The Lufkin Daily News compares the whole thing to the movie Groundhog Day.
The Corpus Christi Caller-Times also uses the term madness, but they're actually pretty mellow about the whole thing.
Finally, the El Paso Times, which was nearly alone in condemning the Democrats for the Ardmore walkout, condemns everyone for the current boycott.
Good stuff.
