<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.5" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Redistricting Liveblog Comment Responses</title>
	<link>http://www.utahbrian.com/2006/12/05/comment-responses/</link>
	<description>Celebrating Utah, Family, Our Wildlands, And Civic Participation</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:15:36 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: PoliticNow.com</title>
		<link>http://www.utahbrian.com/2006/12/05/comment-responses/#comment-2929</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2007 18:44:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.utahbrian.com/2006/12/05/comment-responses/#comment-2929</guid>
					<description>Nice site Brian go to http://www.politicnow.com to be the politician.
Thanks</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nice site Brian go to <a href="http://www.politicnow.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.politicnow.com</a> to be the politician.<br />
Thanks
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: brian</title>
		<link>http://www.utahbrian.com/2006/12/05/comment-responses/#comment-66</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:06:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.utahbrian.com/2006/12/05/comment-responses/#comment-66</guid>
					<description>Thanks for responding.  Multi-member districts are a positive reform.  I believe Arizona has them.  But they're even harder to get than a quality redistricting law because they require a change in the constitution.

&lt;i&gt;Utah Democrats are beating the “competitiveness” drum because they know that it’s one way for them to achieve over-representation — rather than under-representation&lt;/i&gt;

I've spoken with several Democratic elected representatives who are willing to support a nonpolitical redistricting process even if it draws them out of their own districts.  Their motives are entirely idealistic and not simply partisan.

Looks like the HTML turned out fine, Rob.  Another success for WordPress.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for responding.  Multi-member districts are a positive reform.  I believe Arizona has them.  But they&#8217;re even harder to get than a quality redistricting law because they require a change in the constitution.</p>
<p><i>Utah Democrats are beating the “competitiveness” drum because they know that it’s one way for them to achieve over-representation — rather than under-representation</i></p>
<p>I&#8217;ve spoken with several Democratic elected representatives who are willing to support a nonpolitical redistricting process even if it draws them out of their own districts.  Their motives are entirely idealistic and not simply partisan.</p>
<p>Looks like the HTML turned out fine, Rob.  Another success for WordPress.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Rob Latham</title>
		<link>http://www.utahbrian.com/2006/12/05/comment-responses/#comment-64</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:35:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.utahbrian.com/2006/12/05/comment-responses/#comment-64</guid>
					<description>Another problem with making single member districts competitive -- with or without an independent redistricting commission -- is that representativeness gets sacrificed for competitiveness.

It's obvious to me that Utah Democrats are beating the "competitiveness" drum because they know that it's one way for them to achieve over-representation -- rather than under-representation -- in a winner-take-all, single member district electoral system.

But I and most other electoral reformers don't want to leave the outcome of elections to swing voters, which is what would happen if competitiveness is elevated above representativeness.

Furthermore,

&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;a href="http://www.cfer.org/campaign/prop77.php" rel="nofollow"&gt;Iowa has long been held up as the poster child for the effectiveness of redistricting commissions, yet in 2004 all congressional incumbents easily won reelection, and the average margin of victory was a landslide of 18 percent. In the state Legislature, 61 percent of seats in the House were won by landslide margins, 85 percent by noncompetitive margins of 10 points or more. Only four seats out of 100 were won by less than a five-point margin, and the average margin of victory was a whopping 47 percent. Also, in lower house, the Democrats won a majority of the vote but the Republicans won a majority of seats. Thirty-two seats were uncontested, with another six contested by just one major party.&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Thank you for your invitation to join the Democratic Party, but I decline. &lt;a href="http://www.lputah.org/http%3A//www.lputah.org/node/135" rel="nofollow"&gt;I'm a Libertarian for many reasons&lt;/a&gt;, not the least of which is the bipartisan bigotry of those who claim that one cannot make a "real difference" outside of the two incumbent political parties.

That said, I know that there are libertarians working within both incumbent political parties to promote libertarian policies. And I'm willing to work with anyone, regardless of partisan affiliation, on policies where we share common goals. 

To that end, linking to the quote above from Californians for Electoral Reform (an organization I have been involved with as a board member) suggests to me that it may be time to explore the creation of a similar electoral reform organization in Utah. I'll be in touch to follow up.

Rob Latham

P.S.: I request your help to fix the HTML code on this post of it doesn't take as intended. ;-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another problem with making single member districts competitive &#8212; with or without an independent redistricting commission &#8212; is that representativeness gets sacrificed for competitiveness.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s obvious to me that Utah Democrats are beating the &#8220;competitiveness&#8221; drum because they know that it&#8217;s one way for them to achieve over-representation &#8212; rather than under-representation &#8212; in a winner-take-all, single member district electoral system.</p>
<p>But I and most other electoral reformers don&#8217;t want to leave the outcome of elections to swing voters, which is what would happen if competitiveness is elevated above representativeness.</p>
<p>Furthermore,</p>
<blockquote><p>
<a href="http://www.cfer.org/campaign/prop77.php" rel="nofollow">Iowa has long been held up as the poster child for the effectiveness of redistricting commissions, yet in 2004 all congressional incumbents easily won reelection, and the average margin of victory was a landslide of 18 percent. In the state Legislature, 61 percent of seats in the House were won by landslide margins, 85 percent by noncompetitive margins of 10 points or more. Only four seats out of 100 were won by less than a five-point margin, and the average margin of victory was a whopping 47 percent. Also, in lower house, the Democrats won a majority of the vote but the Republicans won a majority of seats. Thirty-two seats were uncontested, with another six contested by just one major party.</a>
</p></blockquote>
<p>Thank you for your invitation to join the Democratic Party, but I decline. <a href="http://www.lputah.org/http%3A//www.lputah.org/node/135" rel="nofollow">I&#8217;m a Libertarian for many reasons</a>, not the least of which is the bipartisan bigotry of those who claim that one cannot make a &#8220;real difference&#8221; outside of the two incumbent political parties.</p>
<p>That said, I know that there are libertarians working within both incumbent political parties to promote libertarian policies. And I&#8217;m willing to work with anyone, regardless of partisan affiliation, on policies where we share common goals. </p>
<p>To that end, linking to the quote above from Californians for Electoral Reform (an organization I have been involved with as a board member) suggests to me that it may be time to explore the creation of a similar electoral reform organization in Utah. I&#8217;ll be in touch to follow up.</p>
<p>Rob Latham</p>
<p>P.S.: I request your help to fix the HTML code on this post of it doesn&#8217;t take as intended. ;-)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

