A new column at the Prospect today defending odd-shaped House districts, and arguing that gerrymandering in general isn't that big a deal. Note that you don't have to believe the latter in order to believe the former. One important point I didn't make in the column: compact, "pretty," districts have a predictable bias in any jurisdiction, and the people who fight over how the lines will be drawn (or at least the smart and informed ones) know what they bias is and who it helps.
Also...there's news on the ACA/Obamacare front, with a bit more reporting confirming my view that people won't realize that the exchanges are "Obamacare." Remember -- there also a number of less visible things that people already haven't realized are part of Obamacare. Anyway, I had some fun with it over at PP.
And some other recent posts:
The real choice coming for House mainstream conservatives
Newt’s party, Newt’s world
Is health insurance a good deal for ‘young healthies’?
(Pretend to) Run, Joe, run!
You're right on Gerrymandering in that the problem isn't the geometry of districts. The problem, in my mind, goes to districts in general. They put geography higher than voter preference, and that just seems indefensible to me.
ReplyDeleteOh my god, Dana Milbank, I can't even get past your title tonight. We GenX are not the worst generation. We built the f$$$ing Internet!
ReplyDeleteOf course we haven't gotten crap done since! We're looking at cat pictures!
Your post on gerrymandered districts made me rethink my position. (OMG! The pain. THE PAIN!!! But I feel better now, really.)
ReplyDeleteThanks for writing it.