At-large versus Districting

Sorry if I am a little slow but by "at large" do mean that Texas has X number of spots in Congress to fill and that anyone, anywhere (in TX) can run for these spots? If not, could you explain.

 

I think that an at large congressional seating looks good on paper but that it would ultimately hurt people that do not have someone from their area representing them. I do not totally understand how district lines are made but I think the are essential. I think perhaps districting needs an overhaul but I have no ideas on how to do it. I do not even pretend to be very politically literate but am definitely interested and want to learn. From my limited knowledge, I believe that their are some awfully convenient district structures (read District 18 and others).

 

At large is great in concept because you don't pitt one district against another, -- your representatives are supposed to govern for the whole region. It also eliminates electoral boundary manipulations. But it can get very ugly in practice.

We have an At_large system for civic elections in Vancouver Canada and in our upcoming election we're supposed to choose ten City Councillors from a field of 46. I have no idea who most of these people are, and I follow local politics closely.

What frequently ends up happening is the first 10 of a particular slate gets in, and there is little opposition.

 

I support proportional representation at all levels. It's ridiculous the way the current system works.

The flaw that you point out is a big problem. Also, more fundamental, is the issue that one "party" could win 51% of the vote in every district, and gain a monopoly. That'll never happen of course... just demonstrates the absurdity of the system.

Current system also disenfranchises voters who might favor smaller groups, such as the libertarian or green parties.

And yes, I know you were more concerned with local issues . But I support "at-large" or "proportional" elections at all levels.

 

One of the disadvantages could be that areas with fewer people might not end up with any real representation at all. If a candidate doesn't have to carry West or South Texas, he/she may not campaign there nor pay any real attention to that area once elected.

In Texas, you might well see a significant amount of campaigning in the four big cities and none anywhere else. Issues that affect the rest of Texas might be given short shrift.

When I was growing up, the city where I lived had at-large city coucil elections. We always ended up with a city council made up entirely of upper-class white guys who lived on the south side of the city (which was the newer, nicer part) because folks in the south side went to the polls in far greater numbers than those on the North Side (which tended to be poorer and had large concentrations of minorities). So the north side ended up being neglected for many years. For all intents and purposes, they didn't have a voice on the council.

Now council representatives are elected from districts throughout the city.

Of course, a counter-argument could be made that if people don't execise their right to vote, they deserve what they get. The North Siders actually had more eligible voters in many years, they just had extremely low registration and turnout. They could've changed the look of the at-large council simply by registering and voting. They just didn't do that for whatever reason.

But I still think geographic districts work better despite their problems. But that's just my opinion.

 

Yes, that's what is meant.

We got into this discussion while regarding the recent local, city council elections. The idea hs some merit, but loses focus when the governed body gets too large (like Texas).

I agree that redistricting has a multitude of problems, but the At-Large way creates a bigger problem. If I understand you correctly, we would all vote in each of the ~30 Texas congressional seats, right? (if this isn't what you meant, ignore my comments below)

What would happen, for example, in a state like Texas is that all the Republicans would win. Instead of having 30 representatives and maybe 12 Dems and 18 Reps to represent the various parts of the state (I have no idea the current proportions), if everyone could vote for each race, we'd have 30 Reps since there's a large majority Republicans in Texas. California would go virtually all Democratic. This basically eliminates the minority voice.

I think every state, barring individual candidates being crazy popular, would become fully represented by the majority party in that state. Sort of like the Electoral College system when minority voices disappear in the winner-take-all format.

Unfortunately, I don't know of a good solution to redistricting. Controlling state governments in the decade years is so vital right now.

 

This is, unfortunately, exactly what often happens. There are too many candidates to evaluate them individually (even if you were inclined to do this) so many people vote along party lines. If you add more than two parties to the mix a 40% popular vote can easily result in 90% + of the seats.

This too, often happens. Its sad, though, because what I like about the At Large system, in concept, is that if politics wasn't so damned political a representative would represent all of Texas and make decisions that benefit everyone, instead of the South Texan looking after that region first, and the other regions looking after their back yards --possibly at the expense of other regions.

But alas, politics is political. The result can often be no representation for non-prime areas.

 

This too has its drawbacks. Proportional Rep rarely results in a majority if you have more than two strong parties. You end up with coalition governments as they have in much of Europe. This limits the government’s ability to make controversial decisions. While I personally support any limits to GWB's current reign (just my own personal political flavour ) I think it potentially provides for much weaker governments.

Despite its drawbacks, I think the current system in the US is still the lesser of evils presented.

 

Maan, i thought you were talking about college or high school football.

Politics?


come on now.

 

Re-districting has always been horrific in Texas. It goes way back to the days of horse trading, a term that is now used metaphorically but had roots in actually trading horses for votes or support. In the early days of the modern organized state politics in Texas (post WWII), gerrymandering (rigging districts to fall along party or monied lines) was supposed to be outlawed.

It still happens today and whenever there is re-districting, you can count on the courts being flooded with lawsuits over the re-drawn lines.

Ultimately, the problem with at-large elections is exactly what others have pointed out. In many cases, small communities are completely ignored. A perfect example of this can be found in Houston's suburbia.

For decades, there was a small strip of land just off of 1960 East that was controlled by no one called Bordersville. It was really just a collection of a few dozen homes - and almost 100 percent African American. It was on the border of the Houston and Humble city limits.

Most of the area was annexed by the city of Houston in 1965 but it took the city <b>17 years</b> to run water lines to the community. They had to wait another <b>14 years</b> for sewers! Residents of the city of Houston did not have working sewers until <b><i>1996</i></b>.

No one wanted to claim it because all the areas around it were growing up white, suburban and affluent. No money. No representation. No power.

To make matters worse, the city never bothered to annex another 3 blocks of the area that NEVER received city services. Ninety poverty-stricken residents didn't actually get any infrastructure until just a couple of years ago. It took them until 1998 just to be annexed!

Unlike Kingwood who absolutely abhored (still does) the idea of being annexed, Bordersville totally embraced it because they were desperate. The city had actually ignored Bordersville in favor of Kingwood and the rich tax base.

They are still completeing infrustrucutre work on the area.

This is the real result of no representation. Now, they are a part of District B and have city representation which, along with some major protesting in Austin by local activists, managed to get them the services they needed to join the 20th century only 100 years too late.

Re-districting is a crappy, corrupt system, but God help people who can't help themselves if they were to get rid of it. You think ANYONE would give a rats ass about Bordersville without district lines? Doubtful.