[KB] Footnote: Re: Missing Mathematical "Recalcitrance" + Representative Anecdote

[Edward C Appel]

Bob,

The example of gerrymandering you've taken from John Stewart sounds most "representative" to me, maybe even close to "ultimate" or "paradigmatic," as Burke uses those labels (GM, pp. 59-61).  It's got all the necessary ingredients, attributes, or "properties" of a gerrymander in spades: In this case, a very Democratic city of 885,400 citizens, with a clear boundary that separates it from surrounding suburbs and rural areas, a muncipality of such size that it ought to send at least a couple of House mambers of like politics to Washington, even if combined with a bit of its environing territories in one or more cases.  Yet it is grotesquely and arbitrarily sliced into six parts, those arbitrary divisions of the city made to fan way out into Republican bedroom communities, so as to dilute and defeat its huge core constituency.  Stewart's illustration thus has the "scope" of a paradigm case of gerrymandering---House voting districts displaying no rhyme or
 reason geographically or politically, in the sense of local political dimensions.  Yet these voting "districts" do serve a quite political agenda, only a conspecuously different one from that served by the city and township boundaries of a more "natural," local variety.

The Austin gerrymander functions as a "reduction" of the kind any one illustration must: It's an ideal that  affords only a partial picture, though a most vivid one, of the many twists and turns that the gerrymander strategy takes in other parts of Texas and the U.S. as a whole.

Let's call on the King of the Representative Anecdote, Barry Brummett, for comment.

Hey, he lives in Austin or vicinity!



Ed

 

             


--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 11/22/14, wessr at onid.orst.edu <wessr at onid.orst.edu> wrote:

 Subject: Footnote: Re: [KB] Missing Mathematical "Recalcitrance" + Representative Anecdote
 To: wessr at onid.orst.edu
 Cc: "Edward C Appel" <edwardcappel at frontier.com>, kb at kbjournal.org
 Date: Saturday, November 22, 2014, 1:41 PM
 
 Maybe another sentence is
 needed for clarity: districts extend beyond  
 the city to dilute democratic votes in thThe city
 and thereby make  
 districts republican.
 Bob
 
 Quoting wessr at onid.orst.edu:
 
 > One example of the
 gerrymandering Ed calls to our attention (see  
 > below) might serve as a
 "representative anecdote" for the lot.
 >
 > I learned about this,
 by the way, on Stewart's Daily Show, which I  
 > watch not just for the comedy but for real
 news. That show, I  
 > believe, gives
 you more real news per minute than the news networks,  
 > which fill so much of their time with
 talking heads.
 >
 > The
 example: In Texas, Austin is democratic territory. It is
 now  
 > chopped up into six pieces, each
 in a different congressional  
 >
 district. The result: Austin is represented in the House by
 five  
 > Republicans and one
 Democrat.
 >
 > No doubt
 this is an extreme example. Does that make it less  
 > "representative" of today's
 gerrymandering? Or more? More  
 >
 representative because it amounts to an entelechial
 perfecting of  
 > gerrymandering? What
 is Burke's criterion of
 "representativeness"?
 >
 > Bob
 >
 > Quoting Edward C Appel <edwardcappel at frontier.com>:
 >
 >> Burkophiles,
 >>
 >> We've all
 been hearing---EVERYWHERE, on Fox, CNN, MSNBC, the  
 >> broadcast news programs, mewspapers,
 etc.--about the 'shellacking'  
 >> the Democrats suffered in the
 Congressional elections earlier this  
 >> month.  Some "recalcitrant"
 numbers are in order:
 >>
 >> In Michigan, 2014, Democrats won 50.9
 percent of the House votes.   
 >> Republicans "won" 64.3
 percent of the House seats, 9 to 5.
 >>
 >> In Michigan,
 2012, Democrats won 52.7 percent of the House
 votes.   
 >> Republiocans
 "won" 64.3 percent of the House seats, 9 to 5.
 >>
 >> In
 Pennsylvania, 2014, Republicans won 55.7 percent of the
 House  
 >> votes.  Republicans
 "won" 72 percent of the House seats, 13 to 5.
 >>
 >> In
 Pennsylvania, 2012, Democrats won 50.8 percent of the
 House  
 >> votes.  Republicans
 "won" 72 percent of the House seats, 13 to 5.
 >>
 >> In Ohio,
 2014, Republicans won 60.3 percent of the House
 votes.   
 >> Republicans
 "won" 75 percent of the House seats, 12 TO 4.
 >>
 >> In Ohio,
 2012, Republicans won 52.4 percent of the House
 votes.   
 >> Republicans
 "won" 75 percent of the House seats, 12 TO 4.
 >>
 >> The total
 number of votes for the House of Representatives is not 
 
 >> in yet for 2014, I do not
 believe.  But in 2012, although  
 >>
 Republicans overwhelmingly "won" the House in
 terms of seats  
 >> occupied,
 Democrats won the actual total vote nationwide by about 
 
 >> 1.4 million.
 >>
 >> The U.S.
 House of Represntatives is grossly gerrymandered for  
 >> Republican "victories" no
 matter what the vote.  The Senate of the  
 >> United States is grossly gerrymandered
 in favor of conservatives by  
 >> the
 Constitution.  Most of the small states are red.  Voters
 in  
 >> Wyoming, for instance, have
 66 times the power of voters in  
 >>
 California, when picking a Senator.
 >>
 >> See
 TalkingPointsMemo.com, November 7. 2014, for the raw
 numbers.
 >>
 >>
 The unfairness of it all is an outrage.  Even more
 outrageous is  
 >> the failure of the
 U.S. media to report the mathematical facts of  
 >> the past election to the USAmerican
 people.
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >> Ed
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 >>
 _______________________________________________
 >> KB mailing list
 >> KB at kbjournal.org
 >> http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
 >>
 >
 >
 >
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > KB mailing list
 > KB at kbjournal.org
 > http://kbjournal.org/mailman/listinfo/kb_kbjournal.org
 >