I'm not implying - I'm saying it is done. Whether or not the Feds don't like it, it is very important for a political party to have a majority at the time of reapportionment. At that time, the lines are drawn to give parties the greatest advantage.
That is, both parties, for if (say) a district is gerrymandered to ensure a Democrat is elected - the Republican areas sloughed off by the Democratic will make more certain the election of the Republican next door
Of course, the redistricting will be so contrived as to give one party more seats - if that's possible.
The result is what I said was the real problem. When the General Election arrives, most of the contests are set-ups with the minority party unable to do anything.
This allows a massive amount of money can be spent in the few districts that are toss-ups. Millions of dollars are spent to attack or defend one of the few seats that might change, for little need be spent on the 95% of seats that are sure things.
Harry ------------------------------------------------------
Selma wrote:
Are you implying that it is a regular thing for political parties to blatantly violate federal laws in the process?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2003 2:39 AM Subject: Re: [Futurework] NYTimes.com Article: 'Some Crazy Guy'
> Selma, > > Gerrymandering is carried out by both parties - to an extent where the > actual number of seats with a real contest is pitifully few. > > Now, that's a problem which needs addressing. > > Harry
**************************************************** Harry Pollard Henry George School of Social Science of Los Angeles Box 655 Tujunga CA 91042 Tel: (818) 352-4141 -- Fax: (818) 353-2242 http://home.attbi.com/~haledward ****************************************************
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.489 / Virus Database: 288 - Release Date: 6/10/2003
