I agree that there is no "attack" taken legally (although this is obviously a political attack).
While you may be able to say that the people will just respond with there votes it is a fine line. It may be argued that such redistricting has the (no doubt desired) effect of making certain votes less powerful than others. You have an area, let's say, that votes predominantly Blue surrounded by a somewhat larger area that votes predominantly Green. In effect you have a collective minority of Blue that enjoys a clear majority in certain areas. Blues can be fairly certain that they will have at least some representation. But now redistricting occurs. In effect all Blue areas are diced and added on to Green areas. Now you have the same collective minority of Blues, but no areas where Blues are the clear majority. Blues now lack even the minority representation they had before. In effect the voting ability of the Blues has been neatly neutered. My point is that this maneuver can only really succeed when implemented by the majority - even if it's only a relatively slight majority. (You also, of course, need some favorable political geography.) In fact this is only politically useful when the Majority lead is a rather slim one (truly small minorities aren't worth the effort as they lack true voting power in any case). If it succeeds there is really no chance that it can be reversed by the people's vote as the point of the exercise is to marginalize the votes of the minority. If successful there may also be a larger, psychological gain as members of the minority, feeling disenfranchised and abused may simply stop voting. It is legal and a powerful option in the political game, but personally I still feel it's a weasel-f*ck maneuver; no matter which side uses it. Jim Davis > -----Original Message----- > From: Raymond Camden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 22, 2003 7:41 AM > To: CF-Community > Subject: RE: Emergency: Democracy under attack in Texas > > How exactly is democracy under attack? Aren't these the elected > officials of Texas? While you may not _agree_ with the Republicans are > doing, I hardly think this is a case of democracy being attacked. It's > very simple. If the people of Texas do not like the new districts, then > they will vote out those who did it. > > -rc > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Sandy Clark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2003 5:01 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: FW: Emergency: Democracy under attack in Texas > > > > > > I don't normally pass this stuff on, but I think this one > > deserves some attention. However I have to warn you that > > their donation page is not secure. I am currently getting > > information on how to donate via PayPal and will be glad to > > pass that on to those who want the information off list. > > > > Sandy > > > > From: Zack <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Exley, MoveOn.org > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 6:04 PM > > Subject: Emergency: Democracy under attack in Texas > > > > Dear MoveOn member, > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=t:5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm?link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm
