Fun with Campaigns
There's a proposal on the ballot in California that would change the way congressional boundaries are drawn. Instead of the state legislature doing the gerrymandering, a panel of retired judges would do it. This is designed to avoid a Texas-like fight over congressional boundaries. It makes sense to me, because everyone knows that all judges are non-partisan, non-ideological observers of American government.
But not every judge is happy. Tonight, as I watched Commander in Chief, Judge Wapner from The Peoples' Court appeared on my television telling me to vote no on that particular proposition. It was sort of jarring to see Judge Wapner again. He looks old and carries himself like a poor man's Steven Hill. So I'll probably vote against it. It's actually a good fit for Commander in Chief, which is morphing into a poor man's West Wing.
But not every judge is happy. Tonight, as I watched Commander in Chief, Judge Wapner from The Peoples' Court appeared on my television telling me to vote no on that particular proposition. It was sort of jarring to see Judge Wapner again. He looks old and carries himself like a poor man's Steven Hill. So I'll probably vote against it. It's actually a good fit for Commander in Chief, which is morphing into a poor man's West Wing.
1 Comment(s):
- Posted by
Jeff'y at October 26, 2005 6:42 AM |
Permanent Link to this Comment
There's a lot wrong with elections in America, and gerrymandering ranks right up there with our repressive voting system. Did you read the Times Magazine article on redistricting this weekend? Beyond the fact that judges obviously can be as partisan as the rest of us, it raises interesting questions about whether creating impartial voting districts is even possible, or desirable.
There's no doubt that anything would be better than gerrymandered districts, of course.
