11 Comments - walker - Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 6:12 pm: The proponents, especially Lightfoot, greatly oversell the positive impact of an appointed commission-drawn map. It hardly puts significant power in the hands of the people versus what they through elected representatives. If a neutral map itself would increase truly “competitive districts” more than by 3 or 4, then they don’t know what those words mean. Whatever. Even modest improvements are better than nothing. Slightly better government is still better government. Most importantly, we’d all be better off without this false excuse for victim hood. They’ll get the signatures. The court will ok it. The public will probably vote for it. Unless the Dems coopt it by reasonable action, it will occur. And we can go on to focusing on more significant issues. - Timmeh - Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 6:25 pm: ==Most importantly, we’d all be better off without this false excuse for victim hood.== I agree, but I’m not certain there won’t be different biases, and I’m even less certain that people will stop complaining even if it is less biased. - Juice - Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 7:29 pm: My issue is that in terms of having independent voices in the General Assembly, the least likely places where they will come from is from competitive districts. Instead we would get even more members who are completely reliant on the Speaker or the Governor for financing. More targets will simply mean fewer members willing/able to take a tough vote, and I don’t think that’s exactly what we need right now. Not that the current system is great, but I just worry this will have a similar impact as the cutback amendment, and further diminish the numbers of truly free-thinking legislators. - Amalia - Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 7:32 pm: study of Florida which Rich put up here several weeks ago says it all. this will not help the cause of progressives. - Louis G Atsaves - Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 7:59 pm: “==Most importantly, we’d all be better off without this false excuse for victim hood.==” Like my heavily Republican Lake Forest being represented by 100% Democrats and zero Republicans in the House and Senate? False excuse? Victimhood? Or hurling nonsensical insults to cover up the real insults the current system creates? - walker - Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 8:53 pm: Louis: peace. I am on your side on this issue. Just don’t think it would produce as much change as you seem to believe. Best case, we both shall see starting in 2022. - illinoisan - Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 9:04 pm: IMO the only reason for a committee is to resolve technical boundary issues that arise in using ArcGIS that utilizes a population gravity model to draw up voting districts. Such a model is mathematically arbitrary to the political system and would be fair to both parties. Know what? Such a process will never happen due to politics hence my reticence to any appointed committee. - JackD - Thursday, Dec 3, 15 @ 11:17 pm: Gotta agree with the poster some time ago who said “after Texas”. No way are red states going to do this. - Norseman - Friday, Dec 4, 15 @ 8:10 am: === and further diminish the numbers of truly free-thinking legislators. === Juice, can you explain. I would think the opposite. Now the powers that be, if they win the extra member, can create districts that make it harder for Solons that don’t toe the line to get re-elected. - Norseman - Friday, Dec 4, 15 @ 8:12 am: === The court will ok it. === I’m still not convinced. - Juice - Friday, Dec 4, 15 @ 9:29 am: Norseman, I was just referring to the fact that the targets are always off the tough votes. For both parties. This would create more targeted districts, though really changing very little for the vast majority of districts. And I’m not convinced on it passing constitutional muster, not sure how this amends both structure and procedures of the GA, but time will tell. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.