From: b645zaw@utarlg.uta.edu (Stephen Tice)
Subject: Re: COUNTER BLITZ  -= Strike out against Pork-Party-Politics =-
Organization: The University of Texas at Arlington
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 18:29:00 GMT
X-Posted-From: utarlg.uta.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1aijk3INN6vg@network.ucsd.edu>, spl@pitstop.ucsd.edu (Steve Lamont) writes...
>In article <01GPH9STSTOK001GRO@utarlg.uta.edu> B645ZAW@UTARLG.UTA.EDU (STEPHEN TICE) writes:
>>Giving a congressional district a name doesn't help, which is why the
>>voting districts (fed/state/local) should split along commonly known
>>lines, whether city subdivisions, (or county, or town, or burrough).
> 
>The problem with this kind of scheme is that makes it difficult to
>equalize representation.  What do you do about representation for
>Dogpatch, population 5, vs. New York City, population 7.5 million?
>Admittedly, this is an extreme and ludicrous example, but there are
>real examples that show similar disparities.
> 
>Unless set up and administered carefully, this sort of districting
>could lead to unequal representation, over-representing certain
>segments of the population.

I wasn't clear. The number of towns or counties grouped together in 
a district doesn't matter. The point is that the connection between
the locale being represented and the district # is lost. When we have
to have a map to figure out who's in what district (even our own, as
well as neighboring districts), then the system no longer provides
for common recognition (or identification). Unless of course one is
a political insider -- but representation shouldn't be geared to just
insiders.

Numbered districts are more evidence of the politics of division.

>>Lay aside party and represent *all* your constituency -- makes sense,
>>right. Just like voting by mail makes sense.
> 
>An idealistic suggestion but, considering human nature, unlikely.  Not
>to mention the rather significant question of what exactly it means to
>represent "*all*" of a constituency.  

More specifically -- "all of a community." Redistricting as is does 
nothing to provide for *any* recognition of community involvement -- zero.

Representing minority interests is not served by obscuring communities.

>Personally, I think I'd worry more about having something to vote for
>than the time and place of voting.

I think worrying is a waste of time. "Worrying" like "fear" is letting
one's mind dwell on things which have not occured. The fact is that 
Americans are being excluded from voting and poorly represented. 

"Time and place" restrictions are examples of ** restriction **.

We have five amendments in the constitution which stripped away voting
restrictions. Having considered the matter -- I can find no sound reason
for *any* voting restrictions for anyone living in our country. 

The reasons most often cited for keeping any voting restriction, 
invariably come from some arrogance or attempt at controlling others, 
and thus are not honest. 

>It's often hard to tell what is a lie and what is the truth.  Politics
>are frequently very subjective -- my lie is your truth and vice versa.
>Certainly if someone steals money and then denies it, that's a lie.

If someone misrepresents the stance or the words of another that is
also a lie. The same is true of failing to acknowledge another's 
viewpoint, which attempts to provide valuable criticism. 

250 million Americans provide enormous diversity and wealth of views.
The media provides 2 of them in politics -- if that. And it often 
seems they only provide one -- *spend money*.

This addiction being pushed on us is killing America. No act which
leads to slavery is an act of freedom.

>Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- spl@szechuan.ucsd.edu
>UCSD Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UCSD Med School/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608

-- Stephen
Xref: sparky alt.conspiracy:10816 alt.activism:16799 phl.misc:240 pa.general:306 talk.politics.misc:48044