Comments on: Massachusetts Fair Districts Initiative Petition http://www.frederickclarkson.com/2005/10/massachusetts-fair-districts-initiative-petition/ The blog of Frederick Clarkson Thu, 09 Sep 2010 11:27:36 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Clay Wood http://www.frederickclarkson.com/2005/10/massachusetts-fair-districts-initiative-petition/comment-page-1/#comment-274 Clay Wood Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:26:00 +0000 http://www.frederickclarkson.com/?p=294#comment-274 Fred, Send email to Clay Wood at <br/>cawood@localnet.com. Fred, Send email to Clay Wood at
cawood@localnet.com.

]]> By: Pam Wilmot http://www.frederickclarkson.com/2005/10/massachusetts-fair-districts-initiative-petition/comment-page-1/#comment-267 Pam Wilmot Fri, 28 Oct 2005 23:00:00 +0000 http://www.frederickclarkson.com/?p=294#comment-267 Political accountability is the whole point of redistricting reform. With gerrymandered districts, voters can't hold elected officials accountable for anything, let alone for redistricting, because the districts are tailor-made to ensure easy reelection. In Massachusetts only about 1/3 of our races have competition in the general or the primary causing an increasingly dysfunctional political process. Besides, whom do the voters in Chelmsford Mass, which went from a single district to a shattered four-piece fragment, hold accountable? They are no longer are a voting block, and the person responsible, Speaker Finneran, lives in Boston. In fact, an independent commission would be more accountable because, unlike the present, there would be clear enforceable standards for their redistricting work and all aspects of the process would be open to the public. Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant. Currently, the process is conducted behind closed doors from beginning to end, and all of the records are secret—protected by so called “legislative privilege.” Political accountability is the whole point of redistricting reform. With gerrymandered districts, voters can’t hold elected officials accountable for anything, let alone for redistricting, because the districts are tailor-made to ensure easy reelection. In Massachusetts only about 1/3 of our races have competition in the general or the primary causing an increasingly dysfunctional political process. Besides, whom do the voters in Chelmsford Mass, which went from a single district to a shattered four-piece fragment, hold accountable? They are no longer are a voting block, and the person responsible, Speaker Finneran, lives in Boston. In fact, an independent commission would be more accountable because, unlike the present, there would be clear enforceable standards for their redistricting work and all aspects of the process would be open to the public. Sunshine, as they say, is the best disinfectant. Currently, the process is conducted behind closed doors from beginning to end, and all of the records are secret—protected by so called “legislative privilege.”

]]> By: JumboDem http://www.frederickclarkson.com/2005/10/massachusetts-fair-districts-initiative-petition/comment-page-1/#comment-266 JumboDem Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:47:00 +0000 http://www.frederickclarkson.com/?p=294#comment-266 Fred -<br/><br/>I've got this issue with many of these redistricting plans, and I just want to throw it out there. The strongest argument AGAINST reform is "elected officials draw the lines, if I don't like them they're accountable to me through election. If a non-elected official is charged with this task, how will they be held accountable" ... my brother brought it up when we were discussing this issue and I didn't have a great reply.<br/><br/>Personally, I support these initiatives anywhere and everywhere. Having seen the after effects of the Delay led Tex redistricting, I'm willing to do just about anything to make sure that people choose their representatives, as opposed to the representatives choosing them. But I'd like to hear how people respond to the above argument Fred -

I’ve got this issue with many of these redistricting plans, and I just want to throw it out there. The strongest argument AGAINST reform is “elected officials draw the lines, if I don’t like them they’re accountable to me through election. If a non-elected official is charged with this task, how will they be held accountable” … my brother brought it up when we were discussing this issue and I didn’t have a great reply.

Personally, I support these initiatives anywhere and everywhere. Having seen the after effects of the Delay led Tex redistricting, I’m willing to do just about anything to make sure that people choose their representatives, as opposed to the representatives choosing them. But I’d like to hear how people respond to the above argument

]]>