I'm not feeling very pundit-like (punditesque?) today, so I'll go for the easy and cheap shot by pigpiling on the Chron's hotshot new columnist Rick Casey, who comes to the amazing conclusion that maybe, just maybe, competitive districts for elected officials may be good for democracy. This particular effort contains more artificial filler than a truckload of Twinkies:
What would you say if I came up with a plan that gave both of you a chance to greatly increase the number of seats you held in the Legislature and in Congress?
A plan that would ensure that you would never again suffer the kind of stand-off that is now making both sides the ridicule of the nation and the objects of disgust among Texans.
A plan that would strengthen the nation while making the working lives of elected officials more pleasant.
What's the plan? Before I tell you, let me remind you of your commitment to the virtues of free enterprise, competition and a government run more like a business.
Because the fact is, your behavior doesn't reflect your stated beliefs.
When it comes to a commitment to competition, you act in ways that would make John D. Rockefeller, Jay Gould and Leland Stanford blush.
If Texaco and Exxon Mobil divided up market share the way you do, somebody would go to prison.
Harris County is not atypical. We have 25 state representative districts, at least part of seven state senate districts and at least part of eight U.S. House districts.
Does he mention Senate Bill 2 and its faithful companion House Bill 49? Does he mention the March 2001 Texas Legislative Council report, which is called "State and Federal Law Governing Redistricting in Texas"? Heck, since he was really more interested in a computer program to do redistricting instead of people doing it, does he mention that the Texas Legislative Council already owns such a program? Please. Do you eat your Twinkies with a wheat germ chaser? I didn't think so.
Thom Marshall, come back! All is forgiven!Posted by Charles Kuffner on August 31, 2003 to Killer D's | TrackBack