There is much discussion about congressional redistricting in the news. I admit it is a bit of civics I may have skipped the class on when in high school. I get the gest of the thing, it is an attempt to have fair representation in the house. The boundaries are adjusted every ten years in alignment with the census. When those lines are drawn to favor one political party over another it is called gerrymandering. The objective being to give that party an edge by including their supporters inside the lines. The census does not ask your political affiliation or religious beliefs. So just what determines how the lines may be drawn and redrawn?
Each state has rules about obtaining the information necessary. Some prohibit the use of election data or party registration, while others do not. But knowing the political affiliation of the population is the single most important thing in the process. It does rely on facts, and the best guess by those that study such things. And yes, there is a great deal of stereotyping involved with that. Those demographics relying upon government safety nets, aids and programs are likely democratic voters. The republicans are more likely white, older, middle and upper class people. As the population shifts so does those lines. When the population shifts rapidly, under that ten year period, the lines may be redrawn. Remember this is supposed to be all about being fair. Maryland has eight congressional districts, one of them is republican. Sounds fair enough doesn't it. Maryland is considering redrawing the lines, and that from a democratic governor. My guess is they want to shut out the republicans altogether.
The whole thing is based upon a simple premise, birds of a feather flock together. It's an old adage and holds a great deal of truth. With the tremendous influx of "migrants" what political party stands to gain the most? The answer is obvious, but one that will be heavily debated and denied. You do have to think long term when dealing with political strategies. The vast majority of those "migrants" aren't voting in our elections but they will one day. What political party is enabling them, supporting them and providing all the promise of a rosy future to them? They are forming "communities" that's what we call that. Politicians view them as districts. It's a policy of appeasement, and we see it playing out before our very eyes all across the country.
In the big picture when all the birds of a feather flock together eventually the other birds start making demands for change and equality. It really doesn't matter what the birds are. What does matter is perception. Not so long ago the "flock" was encouraging self reliance and independence. The objective was to leave the nest, to fly on your own and prosper through your own efforts. That isn't the case today. Now the flock is saying, you can't do that on your own, you need the "flock" to protect you, to feed you and give you security. The "old" people, those rural people that live in the sticks working every day for meager wages are struggling to get by. You don't want to be like that, do you? No, you deserve so much more, you're entitled to that by virtue of being a human being!
Gerrymandering, gathering the flock inside the lines benefits whom? It's you if you comply with the flocks rules and submit to being dependent upon that flock. Thing is, there is always a hierarchy, a leadership role and those that enforce that. Once that control is established the rules can swiftly change. You are fenced in! When the flock controls the means of production, you are fully dependent upon that flock. That is the goal of all socialist policies, controlling the means of production. It soon gets crowded inside those lines, the people get restless, get angry and confused, but they have lost their means of production. The result is always violence and disorder.
Waiting for feeding time
No comments:
Post a Comment