"Drunks with an etch-a-sketch"
A critical assumption of Schwarzenegger's
redistricting plans is that there's something wrong with the way California
districts have been drawn.
In support of this point, the Governor is fond of referring to the irregular shapes of the districts. The sound bite, of which some speechwriter must be rightfully proud, goes like this: "Some of the districts look like they were drawn by a drunk with an Etch A Sketch."
In support of this point, the Governor is fond of referring to the irregular shapes of the districts. The sound bite, of which some speechwriter must be rightfully proud, goes like this: "Some of the districts look like they were drawn by a drunk with an Etch A Sketch."
The implication is that the irregularity of
district borders prove that the borders are somehow flawed. It
doesn't.
I will stipulate that district borders are irregular. They're online, and you can inspect them for yourself. In some places (though hardly in all or most of the cases), they twist and turn and wrap and stretch.
But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Population distributions are irregular in shape, and might seem senseless if one didn't have any sense of the geographical context — but there is a geographical context. People don't live high up in the mountains or underwater; they cluster along freeways; they buy bigger lots (resulting in sparser populations) farther away from urban centers. District lines squiggle in part because populations do.
In support of the Governor's proposal, the Wall Street Journal used this district as an example of the horrors of gerrymandering:
Looky! It's all long and stretched out! Those Democrats are at it again!
To which the response is, of course: Duh. The people in this district all live in a similar climate, have a common interest in local and out-of-state tourism...in other worse, this district makes a lot more sense than grouping each of the municipalities together with land in the same county further inland. There's nothing wrong with this district at all. On its face, there's no reason to believe that this is even an example of gerrymandering, let alone an illustration of the problems thereto pertaining.
Pointing to a funny shape up on a map and saying, "That's a funny shape!" might be an effective tactic before an audience of simpletons, but it proves nothing about the relationship between existing district lines and the lines the way they "should" be. Rhetorically, it's a lot like a creationist pointing to a Photoshopped picture of a whale with cow's legs and hawhawing, "That dog just don't hunt."
We can all believe the evidence of our eyes; it's just important to use what's behind them as well.
I will stipulate that district borders are irregular. They're online, and you can inspect them for yourself. In some places (though hardly in all or most of the cases), they twist and turn and wrap and stretch.
But this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Population distributions are irregular in shape, and might seem senseless if one didn't have any sense of the geographical context — but there is a geographical context. People don't live high up in the mountains or underwater; they cluster along freeways; they buy bigger lots (resulting in sparser populations) farther away from urban centers. District lines squiggle in part because populations do.
In support of the Governor's proposal, the Wall Street Journal used this district as an example of the horrors of gerrymandering:
Looky! It's all long and stretched out! Those Democrats are at it again!
To which the response is, of course: Duh. The people in this district all live in a similar climate, have a common interest in local and out-of-state tourism...in other worse, this district makes a lot more sense than grouping each of the municipalities together with land in the same county further inland. There's nothing wrong with this district at all. On its face, there's no reason to believe that this is even an example of gerrymandering, let alone an illustration of the problems thereto pertaining.
Pointing to a funny shape up on a map and saying, "That's a funny shape!" might be an effective tactic before an audience of simpletons, but it proves nothing about the relationship between existing district lines and the lines the way they "should" be. Rhetorically, it's a lot like a creationist pointing to a Photoshopped picture of a whale with cow's legs and hawhawing, "That dog just don't hunt."
We can all believe the evidence of our eyes; it's just important to use what's behind them as well.
Posted: Mon - March 21, 2005 at 09:45 AM | Category: | | | |
Quick Links
Search
Related topics
Categories
Archives
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
XML/RSS Feed
Blogroll
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 23, 2006 02:49 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Jul 23, 2006 02:49 PM
