Republicans in Texas... I think were missing a check or a balance some where

[Ramo]

Again, I vote for some Democrats. Like the Austin Rep Lloyd Doggett.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, but that makes it no less democratic.

Then stop barking at the Republicans and bark instead at the whole process of redistricting .

I'd bet that the other plans didn't completely eliminate the influence of a major city.

If it's elimination of a major city or similar numbers of rural voters does it matter? After all, when Republicans for Congress get ~57% of the vote in Texas, but only occupy ~41% of the seats, you'd have to figure a lot of rural folks are getting screwed over.

[Ramo]

Then stop barking at the Republicans and bark instead at the whole process of redistricting .

I do. And in this case, the Republicans are doing the redistricting (extremely unfairly), so I'm barking at them.

If it's elimination of a major city or similar numbers of rural voters does it matter? After all, when Republicans for Congress get ~57% of the vote in Texas, but only occupy ~41% of the seats, you'd have to figure a lot of rural folks are getting screwed over.

The '91 plan didn't try to eliminate any Congressional districts or Congressional incumbents. DeLay's plan does.

The reason why there are so many Texas Democrats in Congress is because Texas Republicans are crossing party lines in Congressional elections. DeLay's problem is that several Republican districts aren't voting in Republicans for Congress. Again, all it amounts to is that DeLay doesn't like democracy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I had a nice response and Poly ate it . So I'm going for the shorter version:

The reason why there are so many Texas Democrats in Congress is because Texas Republicans are crossing party lines in Congressional elections. DeLay's problem is that several Republican districts aren't voting in Republicans for Congress.

You TOTALLY misunderstood the numbers.

Of ALL the votes case in Texas Congressional elections, 57% were for Republicans. However, only 41% of the Congressional delegation was Republican. So 57% of the vote went to Republicans, but only 41% make up the delegation.

If you wish think of it in Electoral College terms. Say a candidate gets 57% of the popular vote, but ONLY gets 41% of the electoral vote. Don't you think that is something to rectify (well, the best option in the Presidential case is going to popular vote ).

The '91 plan didn't try to eliminate any Congressional districts or Congressional incumbents.

You must be crazy to believe that a redistricting plan, in any state, where seats were added or decreased (they were added in '91 to Texas) you didn' t have districts or incumbents altered or changed in anyway.

In Jersey, for example, we gained a seat in 2000. Our districts were changed. One district was torn in two, while surrounding districts gained or lost area. One incumbent found himself in someone else's traditional district.

This happens in every redistricting around the country. So it's silly to say that a redistricting didn't remove any districts or incumbants.