Dean's strategy is the best thing that has happened to the Democratic Party in a long time, probably in my lifetime. Without his 50-state strategy we would not be in the position we are in right now. It isn't over yet, and it may or may not break our way. 26 days is an eternity in electoral politics. But the importance of strong state and local parties has been illustrated. I gave no mony to the DCCC or DSCC this year. All financial contributions went to candidates directly, or it went to the DNC. Here in the wide red middle, we say "screw Rahm Emanuel."

We also say "gun control means being able to hit your target" but that would be another thread.

There's something called the American Legislative Exchange Council which works pretty hard to get conservatives elected to state legislatures, which of course are the bodies which control redistricting.

Kev, I gotta disagree with Rachel Morris' conclusion that the Dems should play nice rather than attack dog on considering things such as mid-decade redistricting.

First, DeLay's redistricting effort itself is NOT why he's been indicted. Rather, that was due to a state money-in-politics law that may be unique to Texas.

Second, the redistricting itself worked, pure and simple.

Instead, though, Morris advocates that Democrats act like they always have.

This is an interesting topic, and its difficult to say how much the lack of competitive House races is due to gerrymandering. I tend to agree with the studies showing that it is to some degree, but its hardly the main reason.

There are three midsized states where redistricting is done by a nonpartisan commission, like in most other countries. They are Arizona, Iowa, and Washington. Generally, House races in Arizona and Washington are competitive when an incumbent retires, or there is a national wave, like 1994. This is actually better than in most of the country, like California, where open seats predictably are filled by the party of the retiring incumbent. But it suggests that incumbents have much greater advantages than gerrymandering. Iowa has competitive races more often, but Iowa's political culture is really atypical of the rest of the country.

As a politics geek, I've looked at the 2000 and 2004 presidential vote district by district, and you have notably more districts where either Bush or Kerry got over 55% of the vote than can be explained by a random distribution. In other words, the standard deviation of the partisan vote seems to be quite high. Its hard for a candidate of a party to win when over 55% of the voters are normally inclined to vote for the other party. But there are still quite a few districts where Bush or Kerry were tied, and are still rarely contested.

I think much bigger factors are the long campaign (which means a challenger has to quit his job for over a year to run, which eliminates nearly everyone who isn't an elected official or independently wealthy), the high cost of running a competitive race (at least half a million dollars), the lack of campaign spending limits -which produce the long campaigns and the high costs per race, the tendency of the news media to ignore challengers, incumbent protection collusion between local pols, the fact that the government effectively subsidizes incumbent reelection campaigns through easier ballot access and franking priveleges, and a political tradition among voters where they simply won't vote for someone they have never heard of -which means most challengers. I think these things have a bigger effect than gerrymandering.

Let's cut to the chase here. Gerrymandering is simply bad. The fact that's it's a time honored American political tradition doesn't make it right. It may not be the biggest factor protecting incumbents, but it sure helps.

Now I'm not suggesting that Democrats should support non-gerrymandered redistricting in Democratic states. That would be unilateral disarmament. What Democrats should do it make it a campaign issue and and watch the Repubs tap dance around it. What's good to California and New York is good for Texas and Florida. How about a national agreement between all of the states to use a common politically neutral algorithm to set district boundaries. Can you say constitutional amendment, boys and girls? Beats outlawing flag burning.

aa

I'll do more reading and maybe I'll come back, but both parties would not have redrawn boundaries unless to their advantage.

So, in the recent past, the Repubs went over the edge. Doesn't make anyone right.

You can't rule over your own interests. Politicians drawing voting lines doesn't work. Any Which Way!

Independent bodies to draw districts. No other way.

年终总结 工作总结 竞聘演讲 八荣八耻 和谐社会 治理商业贿赂 社会主义荣辱观 社会主义法治理念 和谐社会专题 教师节专题 党员先进性教育 社会主义新农村 心得体会 述职报告 调研报告 事迹材料 工作报告 汇报材料 反腐倡廉 三农问题 十一国庆节专题 科学发展观专题 五五普法专题 七一建党专题 五一劳动节专题 庆祝中秋节专题 八一建军节专题 活动策划 企划文案 征文演讲 计划规划 中国文秘网

There's a contrarian position, which says that gerrymandering actually sets up the gerrymandering party for _worse_ losses in blowout years like this one could turn out to be (oh, would that it were so), described by Dana Blankenhorn in Gerrymander Math.

Callender --

Sorry, chump, two wrongs never amde a right.

If you do have the corrective, then do they have the power to redraw, or re-gerrymander. Then what? Break the circle.

No! What is needed is a system that is the best for the people, not the politicians. That would put the politicians at far more risk of removal. Yippee!

As I've said, "of the people, for the people, by the people". Get rid of non-people money. Get money interest out of politics. Now!

To put it another way --

Politics in the US is in a downward spiral the last 20 years because both sides are trying to out do each other in sleaze, corruption and non-representative politics, lies to minority support, or reliance on that support without offering any benefit.

In short, US politics is a SHAM because it has only 2 parties representing multiple and very diverse interests. Each party has to lie enough to draw support to win. PATHETIC.

There is no excuse for gerrymandering but neither party wants to set up a system that prevents it. Who's surprised!

nothere: "Sorry, chump, two wrongs never [made] a right. ... As I've said, 'of the people, for the people, by the people'. Get rid of non-people money. Get money interest out of politics. Now!"

In a broad sense, I would agree. However, you will never successfully attain any worthy goal by insisting unequivocally -- and rather rudely -- that yours is the true and only path to political enlightenment.

Speaking as someone who has served on the staff of a reapportionment commission, I can assure you that as long as human beings either sit on such commissions or appoint those who do, you will never completely purge the system of the political urge to gerrymander an outcome.

And as someone who worked in state legislatures for many years, I can also attest to the difficulty you will encounter in completely divorcing money from the political process.

If you take the time to read and understand the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark -- and infamous -- 1976 decision in Buckley v. Valeo, you will note that the Court set forth a rather significant legal threshhold concerning the role or use of money in the course of exercising one's First Amendment right to free speech: "[L]imitations on the amount of money candidates spend in their campaigns are unconstitutional because they abrogate the candidate’s first amendment right to free speech."

That threshhold has since been broadly interpreted in case law by the courts in such a manner that no local, state, or federal campaign finance law has been able to successfuly breach Buckley v. Valeo in the ensuing thirty years since that ruling was first handed down.

What we really need are forceful means that will provide, upon request:
(a) An aggrieved party with a fair and accessible process that can mitigate or curb gerrymandering's excesses, and
(b) The public with the ability to truly monitor the affairs conducted bin the public's name by local, state, and federal governments.

In that regard, enacting binding and comprehensive campaign finance and lobbying legislation that provides for complete, unfettered and timely public disclosure would be as good a place as any to start.

After that, perhaps we can then take further steps that would lead to an eventual reversal of Buckley v. Valeo. But we best also be patient, as well as dogged, in our determination to do so.

Well, as Antonin Scalia famously said in Bush v. Gore - "No American has the right to have their vote counted."

These conservative assholes don't believe in democracy.

And if we find Dems in the South or Midwest, theirs types always that behave better the Kerry's and his cowardly, stuck-ups manner. Kerry was too afraid of getting anything done, and how it might make him look. I sick of Dems like that.

Why wait until 2010? The Texas pecedent shows that as soon as the Democrats attain control of a state, we can redistrict to our hearts' content--every year if we want.

(I'm torn between the "don't unilaterally disarm"and "two wrongs don't make a right" schools of thought.)

I was going to suggest exactly what Steven Jong just said. I live in Pennsylvania where we have a Democratic Governor, who's about to be re-elected; and a legislature that's Republican by only a few votes.

This year there is a very high anti-incumbent fever because of an illegally passed pay raise, added to the anti-Republican fever emanating out of Washington. The legislature may go Democratic as well.

And if it does.....why *not* redistrict PA......? Precedent has been set.

Sorry - what Tom Delay did in Texas bears examination. Delay basically eliminated somewhat safe Democratic seats in the House through off-year (meaning, not during the normal redistricting after a Census) redistricting.

I don't know what the 12 percent means at all--every state and every Congressional District is its own animal.

Rachel Morris:

It was the outlandish saga in Texas that finally prompted some Democrats into rethinking their approach to redistricting. Texas had already produced its map for the decade, but in 2002 DeLay, sensing opportunity, had directed more than $3 million into state elections in a successful effort to put the legislature wholly in GOP control. (He was later indicted for money-laundering charges related to the donations). Next, the GOP set about reversing what remained of a skilful Democratic gerrymander from 10 years earlier. But even in the bare-knuckled world of redistricting, the GOP revision, which netted the party five more seats, seemed not just partisan, but vindictive. It removed Frost’s district entirely (a fact that a GOP operative celebrated gleefully in an email). At one point, a lawyer for one GOP lawmaker described the plan in an email as “the most aggressive map I have ever seen,” adding, “This has a real national impact that should assure that Republicans keep the House no matter the national mood.”

Here's more on Delay's efforts:

High Court Orders Review of Texas Seats
The Associated Press

Monday 18 October 2004

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court handed Democrats a victory Monday, ordering a lower court to reconsider a Texas redistricting plan that could give Republicans six [it turned out to be five] more seats and a firmer hold on their majority in the House.

The decision won't affect next month's elections, though any GOP gains on Nov. 2 could be wiped out later if the plan ultimately is deemed unconstitutional.

[in 2005, a 3-judge panel rejected this. In June, 2006, the Supreme Court The Supreme Court upheld the Texas congressional districts "engineered" [gerrymandered] by Tom Delay that helped the Republicans gain six more House seats in the 2004 elections. ]

States must redraw boundaries every 10 years to reflect population shifts found during the census. Five appeals over the Texas boundary-drawing pose an interesting question: Can political leaders of a Legislature force district drawing more frequently than once a decade, to make more seats winnable for members of their party?

The case has been exceedingly contentious. Democratic legislators twice staged walkouts from the Texas Legislature to protest district-drawing that benefited Republican candidates.

So if the Democrats need fifteen seats to take the House, how significant is it that Republicans were able to secure 6 seats in Texas?

Oh no! I'm being attacked by a space monster! I'd better use my video of him screaming like an idiot to show the American people what a loser he is.

Ignore the idiot impersonating me.

Gerrymandering is good for democrats because it draws the lines so at least some democrats are elected. If boundaries were "fair" the American people would sweep them all out of office entirely.

Al doesn't get his own Colbert reference? Anyway, kudos to both fake Al's for bringing laughter to my morning.

You know, I'll take that bet. I'm for "fair" (that is, as-impartial-as-possible boundary drawers) from sea to shining sea, with Hawaii thrown in (Alaska having only one district).

Give me that across the board, and I'll take my chances. I think Democrats pick up several seats that way.

Gerrymandering IS bad but enough of bring fists to a gun fight.

To Cowardly Legislators in Dem-controlled states, GET OFF YOUR ASS AND START GERRYMANDERING THE REPUBLICANS RIGHT OFF THE DAMN MAP.

I wonder how much the fact that we haven't increased the size of the house since 1915 or so has to do with the staying power of incumbents. If we have the same amount of districts but more people within each district, it seems to me the connection to the people slowly disappears and the power of incumbents begins to work similar to the senate.

Republican meltdown? They'd rather melt the nation down than lose this election without cheating like hell.

NO!!!, NO!!!!, NO!!!

Why are there often as many competitive Senate races as House races even though there are about 13 times as many House races each election?

If there are 8 Senate races this year that are either truely competitive or where the seat will swich hands then why are there only about 40, or less, House races that are competitive or will swich parties?

How can you come up with ANY other cause than gerrymandering?

Remember, neil--

In Senate races, the absence of gerrymandering is more than made up for by the presence of huge money support.

You can pretty much buy a Senate seat these days, if you're willing to pay the price. How do you explain a third of the sitting Senators right now? Substance? Please...

It may be that Republican gerrymandering has produced a net gain of no more than 20 seats for the GOP over the past couple of decades

Is that counting the 6 Delay stole in Texas in 2004?

I agree with Biuhu, and can only add "#$%@*&!!"

My crystal ball says 2010 will be a fun year.

Why does anybody actually think "remedying" the evils of gerrymandering is likely to accomplish a net good? Remember, any new and improved process will be set up by policiticians. Er, make that incumbent politicians. Please show me a single reform -- campaign finance included -- that has not been implemented by these very rational self-interested actors with an eye toward there own self-interest (i.e., keeping their jobs). And then once you've done that please show me the altruistic, non-self-interested lawmakers who won't do what the aforementioned politicians have always done.

You can pretty much buy a Senate seat these days, if you're willing to pay the price.

Oh Please. This is truly the height of idiocy. Try and "buy" the seat held by Ted Kennedy. Or Mitch McConnell. Or Orin Hatch. Or Hillary Clinton.

Would that it were possible to buy the seat held by a well-entrenched incumbent, or at least "buy" competitiveness. Regrettably, campaign contribution limits have made this an impossibility for all but very rich people who want the job. Not enough of them do.

Try and "buy" the seat held by Ted Kennedy. Or Mitch McConnell. Or Orin Hatch. Or Hillary Clinton.

Hmmm.

Where to begin? John Cornyn? Saxby Chambliss? Both seats in Alaska? Both seats in New Jersey, which gave us a couple of rubes that voted for torture?

If it is truly the will of the people we are interested in, then all political candidates should be limited to campaign funding from those people. It should not be legal to purchase ones own seat based solely upon the depth of their personal wallet. [FORMER] New Jersey Senator Jon Corzine (D) bought his senate seat for a mere $64 million, $61 million of which came from his personal bank account. Also from New Jersey, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D) bought his seat for only $3.3 million, a much better deal. But again, half of that money came from his personal bank account.

And Menendez isn't exactly squeaky clean, being the other rube who voted for torture along with Lautenberg.

Bill Frist didn't go out and buy his seat in Kentucky? That HCA money didn't help him, huh?

You cherry pick by naming a few Senators, but, by and large, they've all pretty much bought their seats.

That's really why the Ned Lamont story resonates--he's using his own money to defeat a guy who gets his money from the Republicans. We need substantive campaign finance reform, of course, but by and large, if you're willing to pay the price, you can buy a seat in the Senate. You damned sure aren't going to get one for free.

Let me make two points here. One is about the feasability of actually eliminating partisan districts. The other is about the desirability of it. Then, for shits and grins, i want to comment on some things said about the Texas redistrict.

First, I'm not even sure one *can* eliminate gerrymandering. Look, let's assume we're just going to plop down squares of X number of people. Where those squares start and end is still going to have a huge effect on the outcome of elections. Think New York, with its multiple districts. If you start south and work north, the division between the mildly Republican upper east side and the heavily Democratic East 90's is ephemeral at best. Deciding where you start counting is still going to end up with safe and unsafe districts.

Moreover, the above is a political decision, and it makes some sense for it to be made in a political way. Just as the GOP complains about "activist" courts that make new law, this, with its huge political implications, can't be divorced from the political process.

But those are unimportant and technical objections (that can be fleshed out heavily - I know I just gave a quick and dirty version) to something we might not even prefer. The one advantage of the current system is the ability to have a more diverse Congress. Let's assume not that people are evil and will *never* vote for a candidate of different racial or ethnic background, but that there is an advantage to a candidate in being of the same racial or ethnic background as the voter. As a Jew, I will say that it felt good in 2000 to be voting for Lieberman for VP, even though I was a Lamont contributor and supporter in 2006. I think that this advantage is being relatively generous to people, recognizing that we all have biases without making a claim that racial identity is political destiny. Fair enough?

The problem is that, without that advantage, without having "majority minority" districts, many good minority candidates would have a MUCH harder time getting elected. It would significantly cut down on African American representation in Congress, as well as virtually eliminating Latinio representation. Even in a state like Maryland, where a large area of the most populous city is predominantly African American, it would end up diluting the black vote by effectively having no black areas outside of Baltimore itself.

Look, I think the system as currently constituted sucks. I agree with that. And we can do better and fairer, especially if we make competitive districts a goal rather than an exception. But eliminating gerrymandering is neither easy (I would argue even feasible) nor necessarily desirable.

Finally, on the Texas redistrict, and why Dems can't pull the same move in PA. The problem in Texas was that they couldn't pass a redistrict the Governor would sign, and they couldn't override his veto. Therefore, the courts created those settled lines. But creating districts is, according to the state constitution, a legislative responsibility. The Legislature's lines start out with a stronger claim to legitimacy than the 2002 lines. The court, according to this way of thinking, overstepped its bounds in creating the lines in the first place. While this was acceptable to allow there to be representation in 2002, as soon as the Leg could fulfill its constitutional mandate to create lines that would be signed into law, it had the presumptive right to do so.

Was this unprecedented? Absolutely. Filled with scum sucking pigs whom I can't stand? Check. Transparently a power play by DeLay and company? Yep.

But it's not a completely looney approach to the law.

I'd prefer statewide at-large districts with proportional representation. I really would. But that's not forthcoming. And there are those who would argue against that, because it dilutes the influence any one voter can have with a candidate, and forces even bigger money into the system in large, expensive states line New York, PA, TX and CA, it would make the system even less responsive to the average voter. So it's not perfect, either.

All I'm saying is that, in a non-parliamentary system, this is not a slam dunk. It's not easy to fix, and not all the fixes are particularly good.

Good lord, get a grip.

The problem isn't gerrymandering or 'redistricting' (same diff).

The problem is that we constitently take representation away from people who can and do vote, to "represent" people who can't and don't.

Sadly, this is PRECISELY what's wrong with the Democratic Party these days -- we act like letterheads with foundation grants are "constituencies", and (as Kos points out in his book) those organizations ARE the Democratic Party, where similar organizations on the right merely support, yet remain independent from, the Republican Party.

Do the frigging math: the average Congressional district in Massachusetts, NY and Connecticut, states which have lost Congressional seats in the last thirty years, produce roughly 200,000 votes in Presidential years.

The average Congressional district in California and Arizona, which have consistently gained seats, turns about 100,000 votes in Presidential years.

The POPULATION in these districts is sorta roughly comparable, and I'm not advocating that we give up one person, one vote.

But progressives should ABSOLUTELY adopt the principle that "No state which gains population can lose representation."

WTF is wrong with you folks?

After the 1980 Census, Bob Dole worked brilliantly to renew the Voting Rights Act, mandating (since overturned) that if it was possible to draw a majority/minority district, it HAD to be done. Just like that, the moderate Southern wing of the Democratic Party evaporated, and the Congressional Black Caucus tripled.

But the fact is, it is better to be decisive in several districts, than dominant in one.

DO THE MATH -- and find the principle before it bites us again.

(shaking head) Lord, folks who stand for nothing really will fall for anything.

Foley feels up a page on the House floor,

http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2006/10/11/Government/Page-Foley.Touched.Page.On.House.Floor-2343543.shtml?sourcedomain=www.michigandaily.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

The problem is that we constitently take representation away from people who can and do vote, to "represent" people who can't and don't.

And they do that through gerrymandering. Duh.

No, Pale, they don't "do that through gerrymandering". Don't be SO fucking stupid, k?

"Gerrymandering" generally refers to taking your basic state with, say, 10 Congressional districts, and dividing it up so that the roughly 50-50 split between one party and the other produces 7 reasonably safe seats for one party, a competitive seat, and 2 overwhelmingly safe seats for the other. Basically, you put ALL the reliable votes for your opponents in as few districts as possible, so you can take as much as you can from what's left.

That's gerrymandering.

What y'all are evidently missing from a lack of civics literacy, is that the real issue is the shift of representation from VOTERS, to 'people".

Why does NY, which has gained population for the past 30 years, have six fewer representatives in Congress?

In a properly gerrymandered state, no voter is actually denied the impact of their vote. If anything, it's the opposite. Hell, as the REAL example from the 1980s that I cited proves, when Democrats were confronted with the majority/minority district trap, we actually argued that 70 and 80% Democratic districts meant MORE power to those voters, that it would somehow disenfranchise 'em if they were 51% in three districts instead of 80% in one.

Sweet suffering Jesus, don't you guys ever THINK?

You seem to be using two purported effects of gerrymandering: Republican partisan advantage and increased advantage to incumbency interchangeably as if the two were equivalent. While, clearly, if both are real effects there is some contingent relationship (as additional advantages to incumbency across the board will benefit the Republicans as long as they are the majority party), they aren't really the same thing at all, and the question of whether redistricting over the any particular timeframe has contributed to one is distinct from whether it has produced the other systematically.

I'd prefer statewide at-large districts with proportional representation. I really would. But that's not forthcoming. And there are those who would argue against that, because it dilutes the influence any one voter can have with a candidate, and forces even bigger money into the system in large, expensive states line New York, PA, TX and CA, it would make the system even less responsive to the average voter. So it's not perfect, either.

Well, "proportional representation" can mean many things, but the problem with large states (expensive or not) is that you basically have two options:

1) Have a candidate-centered PR system (using STV or a similar system), and have hundreds of candidates on the ballot for Congress.

2) Have a party-list system, where general election voters don't vote for candidates at all.

Neither of these is really conducive to candidates being held effectively accountable to the voters, which is why I prefer small (say, 5 member) multimember districts with an STV-like electoral system to acheive rough proportionality while maintaining personal accountability. (And, at the same time, increasing effective choice even without considering the encouragement of additional parties.)

And even those fairly small multimember districts would do as much or more to preserve minority voting power and representation than majority-minority single-member districts, plus drastically reduce the potential distortions possible through districting, whether innocent or deliberate.

Uhm, Americanist, what you're essentially arguing is that we should just have a larger House. OK. We can do that. But it's neither going to change the proportion of people from the different states, nor is it going to be particularly wieldy.

The population of states increase. But the PERCENTAGE of people from those states as a ration to the whole of the nation declines. So they lose seats. All the time. That's why, though we've certainly grown as a nation, we still have the same number of Reps we had in 1911.

Of course, New York lost House seats. It used to be the largest state in the Union. It's not anymore. Get over it.

As to the turnout for Presidential elections, turnout is always lower in the west, in part because of the sense of inevitability, and in part because of result delay. This tendency goes down in off year elections, when both coasts have terrible turnouts.

As regards the first point, states like Massachusetts, in which only one party sends delegations to the Congress, always have low turnout. But California, in part because of legitimate interest differences between the more liberal urban and coastal communities and the more conservative and agricultural central communities, is much like living in an area in which there is no competition. When I lived in SF, my progressive vote didn't matter much, and most people know that, so turnout is lower.

This is exascerbated in Presidential election years in part because there is simply no competition for votes by the parties in California, and hasn't been since 1992, and in part because evening voting is frequently discouraged by the foreknowledge of results. I will say that, when it's 6:00 California time in 1996, it was tough to go out and vote. The only thing that got many to the polls were the referenda, and I share Kevin's view that, in many cases, referenda are shams, so they rarely drive turnout.

We think, Americanist. We're just not lost in trying to figure out the distinction between raw numbers of population and percent of population.

Hey, cmdicely, good points. But doesn't the 5 person district only work out in large states?

Moreover, this sort of solution suffers from the same problem that mine does: feasibility. Let's say, for the moment, that I accept your proposal as a "friendly amendment". How do we get from here to there? I don't see it as being even plausible, even to the extent that it's preferable.

So let me restate, since we're getting off on an interesting sidelight.

The main point I was making was that, unless radical change is on the menu, and I don't see sitting politicians who won in the current system putting it onto the menu, gerrymandering, redistricting and all of the attendant evils are both part of the system and potentially preferable to the alternatives.

So, when we have the Ron and cmdicely Constitutional Convention (and for the event, I'm magnanimous enough to make it the cmdicely and Ron Convention; I commented on the idea first, but you had the better operational idea), we can hash out the advantages of the comparative systems. But the original post, the one I meant to comment on, is still problematic to me. I think I'd prefer the current system to spending a lot of time and/or money trying and failing to eliminate partisan gerrymandering.

The argument for libertarianism that I've always found attractive (if not completely persuasive) goes something like this. All systems of governance, from despotism to communism, work well if we assume that all citizens are angels. They break down around human failings. Libertarianism assumes human greed and venality, and tries to turn it into a strength of system, converting a bug to a feature.

The same can be said of partisan gerrymandering. Given that even "non-partisan" panels are made up of people who are themselves likely to be partisan, and that non-partisan districting is almost impossible, and that it might not even be preferable, I'd rather at least have it subject to the rough and tumble of politics.

Does that make more sense?

I would also tend to agree with those who believe that the effect of gerrymandering is somewhat overstated. Let's not forget that people tend to associate with other people who share similar attitude towards life. You can gerrymander big cities all you want for example, but that won't get you around the fact that virtually every big city in the US leans Democratic. Likewise, you could gerrymander all you want and not get around the fact that many areas in the country are Republican dominated no matter how you draw the lines.

Where it seems that gerry mandering would have the most impact is in the suburbs, and that's what makes the 12% figure seem about right to me since that's about 50 seats in House.

Here's my proposal: the Dems should push a Constitutional amendment mandating that when states redistrict, the most compact redistricting plan (with equal pop in each district) put forward must be the one chosen, with a definition of compactness I'll outline in a moment.

This would give the Dems cover while they gerrymander in the states they control: they could say, "we'd like it if nobody gerrymandered, but if they do it, we've got to do it too."

The amendment should define compactness like this: (a) Compute the center of population in each district.
(b) For each Census block in the district, compute the square of the distance from the center of the block to the center of population of that district. Do this for all the blocks in all the districts.
(c) Multiply the numbers in (b) by the number of persons in each block.
(d) Sum up the numbers in (c). The redistricting plan with the lowest sum wins.

This would get you the most compact districts with respect to population. A computer could certainly be programmed to obtain pretty compact districts, and if either party wanted to propose a different plan, it would have to beat the computer's plan.

Hey, cmdicely, good points. But doesn't the 5 person district only work out in large states?

Well, in practice (unless you change the mechanisms of apportionment), you have to be flexible on size of district: exact 5 member districts only work in states with multiples of 5 representatives.

So you'd probably have to probably set a range of district sizes, say 4-7 members, and require that a state district itself so that the largest district has no more than 1 member more than the smallest, and a state with less than 4 total members will be one statewide district.

Moreover, this sort of solution suffers from the same problem that mine does: feasibility. Let's say, for the moment, that I accept your proposal as a "friendly amendment". How do we get from here to there?

Well, clearly, you aren't going to get politicians to go along with it nationally without overwhelming public pressure. So, what you need to do is to make it popular by putting something similar into practice in, to start with, one state, which has a citizen-initiative process that would permit such reforms for the apportionment of the state legislature. And then once you show that it works there, you use that to foster similar reforms in other states, until you get to the point where people just naturally think its unacceptable that the US Congress still is apportioned and elected the "old fashioned" way.

The main point I was making was that, unless radical change is on the menu, and I don't see sitting politicians who won in the current system putting it onto the menu, gerrymandering, redistricting and all of the attendant evils are both part of the system and potentially preferable to the alternatives.

I'd phrase that as "unless radical change is on the menu, there are no alternatives (better or worse) to gerrymandering, redistricting, and all of the attendant evils, since they are all fundamental to the current system." Which, though it isn't how you phrase it here, I think we nmay agree on.

I think I'd prefer the current system to spending a lot of time and/or money trying and failing to eliminate partisan gerrymandering.

Well, I'd certainly prefer it to a lot of the proposed "solutions" which often involve obscuring the interests of those districting (such as by having appointed, notionally non-partisan panels, drawn from pools of retired politicians or political appointees—state judges, particularly), or adopting "objective" rules that inherently serve to favor one side (the "follow internal boundaries" rule that in many places its been proposed favors a small —compared to the proportion of Democrats in the electorate—number of supermajority Democratic urban districts and a large number of narrower majority Republican districts.)

The argument for libertarianism that I've always found attractive (if not completely persuasive) goes something like this. All systems of governance, from despotism to communism, work well if we assume that all citizens are angels. They break down around human failings. Libertarianism assumes human greed and venality, and tries to turn it into a strength of system, converting a bug to a feature.

I've never found that particularly convincing for libertarianism because I don't see it as being true of libertarianism, OTOH, something like that is what I see as a convincing argument for basic classical liberal limited government through representative democracy, so I certainly understand where you are coming from here.

OTOH, there is a difference between what is fundamental and inalterable in human nature, and what is an alterable, chosen political structure.

The same can be said of partisan gerrymandering. Given that even "non-partisan" panels are made up of people who are themselves likely to be partisan, and that non-partisan districting is almost impossible, and that it might not even be preferable, I'd rather at least have it subject to the rough and tumble of politics.

Yeah, on that much we agree: I'm a little less negative than you on the viability, at least in the long-term if a concerted effort is made, of fundamental reform, but you'll often see me arguing here when the issue comes up that if we are going to try to deal with gerrymandering, we need to address it at the fundamental level of the electoral system that makes districting high-stakes, and that superficial efforts that deal with how districts are drawn are inherently going to have as many undesirable distortions as the status quo, and generally be far less transparent and accountable than the status quo.

I think we're largely on the same page.

If redistricting has led to a "net gain of 20 seats," that's more than enough to make the difference in control of the House. Every seat counts when winning 50% +1 of the seats means controlling nearly 100% of the agenda.

In other words, gerrymandering matters. Big time.

Here's my proposal: the Dems should push a Constitutional amendment mandating that when states redistrict, the most compact redistricting plan (with equal pop in each district) put forward must be the one chosen, with a definition of compactness I'll outline in a moment..

Other than its use in providing political cover, I see nothing to recommend this. Compactness, as you've defined it, while an easily measurable and decidable standard, doesn't seem particularly meaningful.

If we're going to push a reform to provide political cover while it isn't accepted, I'd rather push a good reform.

The Americanista

Do the frigging math: the average Congressional district in Massachusetts, NY and Connecticut, states which have lost Congressional seats in the last thirty years, produce roughly 200,000 votes in Presidential years.

The average Congressional district in California and Arizona, which have consistently gained seats, turns about 100,000 votes in Presidential years.

and

What y'all are evidently missing from a lack of civics literacy, is that the real issue is the shift of representation from VOTERS, to 'people".

Dude - it's in the Constitution:

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that:

--the House Representatives be apportioned among the several States according to their respective populations; [not voters]

--the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000 persons;

--each State shall have at least one Representative; and,

--the reapportionment shall occur once every 10 years as a result of the decennial census.

Until we change the Constitution, I don't think you're going to get things your way. Having said that, we're not going to change the Constitution. It's that simple. The Republicans know this, that's why they had people like Dole and Delay doing everything they could to game the system. If you want to affect things, you have to stop the game they're playing, not jump up and down and scream about how the whole thing doesn't work the way you think it should work. It's called being tactical and effective, not hysterical and unrealistic.

'kay? Okay.

Now, if you address the issue of gerrymandering, as in, what was done in Texas, you might find a way to eliminate some but not all of these problems?

'kay? 'kay?

Until such time, please take your shrill amateur hour hysterics elsewhere.

'kay?

LOL -- I WAS gonna apologize to Pale for identifying him as dumb, but I see that was misplaced.

(sigh) From 1790 until 1920, EVERY census resulted in more representatives.

We only stopped because the Congress realized after 1920 (when the original legislation would have responded to the wave of immigration recorded by that census with an increase of 75 more reps, to 510), that adding more reps simply diluted the power of each individual member, that is: THEM. So they stopped.

It's sorta lost on folks who are too stupid to understand the principle on which the country was founded, namely that population COMPELS representation, but the Constitutional principle is precisely the opposite to modern practice. There are more people in NY. It isn't a matter of proportion that they have fewer representatives.

It IS a measure of how stupid progressives have become that I have to even explain this to folks who oughta know better.

(sigh) Put it this way -- it is easier and more efficient to divide a GROWING pie. Democracy is not be a zero sum game.

So why are you guys accepting blithely that it must be?

Unwieldy? Gimme a break -- did you ever WORK in the Congress? Fed Ex, it ain't.

Britain, with a smaller population, has half again as many reps as the US.

Golly, you folks really DON'T think about principles, do you?

No wonder you fall for anything.

(sigh)

It's sorta lost on folks who are too stupid to understand the principle on which the country was founded, namely that population COMPELS representation, but the Constitutional principle is precisely the opposite to modern practice. There are more people in NY. It isn't a matter of proportion that they have fewer representatives.

Yes, but the priority of New York State fell in relation to other states; the reapportionment of Congressional seats is based on the formula for allocating seats:

Since 1910, however, a permanent ceiling on membership in the House of Representatives has been set at 435 legislators. Seats were allocated by first giving each state one seat and then awarding the remaining seats in succession to the states with the largest remaining quota. In 1950, the statute defining the formula was modified slightly. Each state was given one seat, and the remaining 385 seats were allocated in succession under a priority numbers formula. This formula is referred to as the "method of equal proportions.”

So what good does it do to bitch about the fact that New York State lost seats when the method of equal proportions was applied to the state? That's the system we have. It's not perfect. Bitching and screaming accomplishes what? Oh yeah, the Republicans keep taking districts away from Democrats while you look the other way.

(sigh)

I realize you're too mush headed to understand, so one last try:

In...1991, the population quota for congressional districts ranged from 455,975 in Wyoming to 803,655 in Montana. This broad range occurred because each state is awarded at least one seat, even if its population is below the "national quota" for a seat. No national electoral quota is actually applied in the United States; quotas are calculated only on a state by state basis. The population of the state of Wyoming was below the "national quota" for a congressional district, but was awarded a seat; whereas the population of Montana, more than ample for one congressional seat, was not quite large enough to be allocated two seats.

That's the system we have. It's not perfect. Patronizing people and screeching hysterically isn't going to get anything done.

This is really informative as well:

FYI

Information Required to Draw Electoral Districts

Delimitation, or redistricting, requires the collection of several different types of information. The two essential pieces of information are population data and maps. The population data, which may be in the form of census enumeration data or voter registration data, provide the only means of creating districts that are relatively equal in population. The population data must be associated with a specific geographic area and must be as accurate and up-to-date as possible. Maps are needed to ensure that only contiguous geographic population units are assigned to districts.

A third piece of information that may or may not be utilised for redistricting is political data. Political data usually refers to election results --tabulations of votes for candidates and ballot measures from previous elections by voting area. Including political data in the redistricting database allows line drawers to produce a political profile of proposed districts and to predict, to some degree, the partisan implications of a redistricting plan.

Election results can easily be entered into the redistricting database if they are reported for the same geographic unit as the population data. This will likely be the case when the population units for redistricting are based on voter registration data. If, however, the population units are based on a census enumeration, the geographic units for population and political data may not be the same. In that case, census geography and election geography may have to be matched in some manner to create geographic units that can be associated with both population and political data.

In the United States, for example, electoral districts are usually created using census geography (census blocks or tracts), but election results are reported at the voting area (election precinct) level. These two units of geography--census blocks and election precincts--are not equivalent. States that wish to use political data in conjunction with population data must develop some method of matching political data with the corresponding units of census geography.

The party that does it all best wins, in the short run or in the long run: Gerrymander, find potential voters, put up charismatic candidates, raise and spend tons of $$$ wisely.
Legally
Honestly
Energetically

LOL -- Pale, that's a STATUTE. Congress can change it at any time.

D-uh.

LOL -- Pale, that's a STATUTE. Congress can change it at any time.

So why don't they? Oh, that's right--regardless of what the statute reads, there's still the pesky Constitution to contend with.

For someone professing to be so smart, when we give you the answers, you get all huffy like you want to pull up your dress and cry and run away.

Thanks for ignoring the real point--your method is what an all-or-nothing whiny little bitch would scream about. Step aside while the adults fix the problem.

Dayum, Pale, you ARE as dumb as I thought.

This is how it works: the nation was founded on the principle that population compels representation. The Constitution specifically provides the House be based on population. The law requires that all states have at least one rep, no district can cross state lines, and within some number set by the Congress, equal proportions sets the size of districts in some roughly equal scale.

That is (this is from memory, but it's close) if taking the last extra rep from Delaware is more proportionately equal (even though it leaves one rep for 800,000 people) than cutting Connecticut down to five, or four -- than that's what you DO.

You obviously don't know how it works, Pale, cuz that's all statutory. The Constitution doesn't fix the level of representation, nor does it require equal proportions force Delaware, or Montana, to have just one rep even though each of those states has many more people than any Congressional district in states that have more than one rep.

They don't change the total level of US representation because people like you are suckers: it benefits the 435 members of the House, collectively, because they get to choose their voters, instead of the voters getting to choose THEM.

I've argued for years that progressives ought to adopt the principle that NO state that gains population should lose representation: when California or Arizona grow enough that equal proportions says they get another rep, the House should grow beyond 435.

That is the ONLY way gerrymandering becomes a plus-sum game.

Do the math.

The Constitution doesn't fix the level of representation, nor does it require equal proportions force Delaware, or Montana, to have just one rep even though each of those states has many more people than any Congressional district in states that have more than one rep.

Since representatives in Congress are indivisible quanta, you aren't going to have actually equal representation no matter how you apportion them, unless you get lucky with how the population is distributed so that the populations of each of the 50 states have some common divisor that lets you equally apportion representatives.

You can, of course, rearrange statutory rules to change where the inequalities concern, but other than amending the Constitution to end apportionment to the states altogether and drawing districts nationally and equally, you can't avoid the problem.

They don't change the total level of US representation because people like you are suckers: it benefits the 435 members of the House, collectively, because they get to choose their voters, instead of the voters getting to choose THEM.

The number of members of Congress, and whether it increases, has little to no effect on that. The partisan duopoly that is an effect of the electoral system (not the system of apportioning representatives), and the fact that districting is done by state legislatures or under rules set by state legislatures guarantees that the it will serve the same political elites that make up the Congress.

I've argued for years that progressives ought to adopt the principle that NO state that gains population should lose representation: when California or Arizona grow enough that equal proportions says they get another rep, the House should grow beyond 435.

Well, you may have argued that for years, but you haven't mustered a coherent argument for it yet in this thread.

That is the ONLY way gerrymandering becomes a plus-sum game.

No, its not. Districting is a zero sum game: the total legislative power of Congress is fixed (or, at least not dependent on districting, so fixed with respect to districting methods and decisions), so any changes to how that power is distributed among the various states and, ultimately, among the people in various states is, inherently, zero sum. More representatives does not mean more or better representation.

If you want better representation, you need to work on the electoral system more than the apportionment of representatives.

Thank you, Mr. Dicely.

I wish I was able to express it as well as you just did.

I wish EITHER of you had a clue.

The nation was founded on the proposition that population compels representation. (You did know that, right?)

Since 1910, the population has more than tripled -- yet we have not added even one more permanent representative. (We have twice had more than 435 temporarily.)

I've observed that this is what makes gerrymandering a zero sum game.

DO tell, folks: what about this strikes you clowns as incoherent?

In your "reasoning", such as it is, the perfect approach to apportioning representation within a state is that used by Wyoming, Alaska, Delaware, Montana, etc., in which there is ONE rep for the whole state: shazzam!

As Dicely "reasons":

"...Districting is a zero sum game: the total legislative power of Congress is fixed ... so any changes to how that power is distributed among the various states and, ultimately, among the people in various states is, inherently, zero sum. More representatives does not mean more or better representation.

You guys really are dumber than even I give you credit for.

(patiently) This isn't about the "total legislative power of Congress', whatever that is supposed to mean. Puh-leeze, Dicely, spare us the explanation: NOBODY thinks you know what you're talking about.

Representation is about "We, the People". When MORE people have FEWER representatives (cf. NY, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.), the relative power of the reps is greater, and that of the people is less.

Going too fast for you?

When the same number of reps, subject to the rule of equal proportions, blah blah, are divided among a LARGER population, particularly when the population growth is disproportionately among those who do not and cannot vote -- the relative power of the reps is greater, and that of the people is less.

Too complex for you? Read it again. 200,000 voters in Congressional districts in Massachusetts, NY and Connecticut, and 400,000 in Delaware, LOST a vote in Congress, so that 90,000 voters in districts in Arizona and California could get one.

Do the math: if you added seats, the former wouldn't have been robbed, while the latter would STILL have gotten their representation in Congress.

Too complicated? God, you're dumb.

There is another CONCRETE example of all this mess, which I cited above, after the Dole VRA extension in the 80s mandated majority/minority districts.

Rather than push for being decisive in many districts, Democrats settled for being dominant in a few: poof! The moderate Southern wing of the party was extinct in six years (do the math! THIS is how Republicans got the majority in 1994), while the CBC tripled.

Do the math -- if states that had gained population were not robbed of reps after the 1990 and 2000 Censuses, we'd have a healthier republic.

LOL -- 'course, you guys haven't learned to think yet, much less do math and learn history.

Americanist bursts a blood vessel in his brain, dies of an anuerysm, no one cares.

Film at 1100...

The nation was founded on the proposition that population compels representation.

I don't even know what you think you mean by "population compels representation". It seems to be a poorly-worded attempt to express the idea that there is some hard minimum floor to the ratio of population to representatives in the national legislature, which is a nice idea but not one on which the US was founded (its certainly one one which, as I recall, a few of the founding fathers had expressed some opinions, but that's not the same thing.)

Since 1910, the population has more than tripled -- yet we have not added even one more permanent representative.

This is true, but so what?

Representation is about "We, the People". When MORE people have FEWER representatives (cf. NY, Massachusetts, Connecticut, etc.), the relative power of the reps is greater, and that of the people is less.

There is some remote truth to this, though not in the sense you seem to mean it. You seem to think that this is true collectively (that is that the total power of the people compared to the total power of the representatives is less when there are fewer representatives.) This is not correct: the total power of the people and the total power of the representatives is mostly independent of the ratios of each (if anything, the total power of the representatives increases with their sheer numbers, so the reverse of what you seem to believe is true.) On the other hand, the individual power of each representative is greater with smaller numbers of representatives, so its true that the ratio of power between the average representative and the average person is greater when there are more representatives.

(Of course, given the practical problems with larger bodies of representatives, and how larger bodies tend to become in practice more internally stratified, the degree of inequality in power between representatives probably increases with the size of the legislature, as well.)

Too complex for you? Read it again. 200,000 voters in Congressional districts in Massachusetts, NY and Connecticut, and 400,000 in Delaware, LOST a vote in Congress, so that 90,000 voters in districts in Arizona and California could get one.

Do the math: if you added seats, the former wouldn't have been robbed, while the latter would STILL have gotten their representation in Congress.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Everyone has their representation in Congress in either case. The only difference is that with more representatives, you reduce the "rounding errors" that lead to unequal representation ratios, while increasing the stratification in Congress which increases the inequality in power among representatives. I don't think its really clear where the balance lies in terms of which provides less practical inequality, but there are inequities produced by either.

There is no way to address this so long as you apportion districts by states.

There is another CONCRETE example of all this mess, which I cited above, after the Dole VRA extension in the 80s mandated majority/minority districts.

This is certainly a problem with gerrymandering, and illustrates the problem with single-member districts in general, but has no real connection to the number of representatives, except (of course) that if you decrease or increase the number of representatives enough, the potential for this kind of problem goes away (for instance, if you make, at one extreme, 1 representative per state, or at the other extreme 1 representative per person, the issue of stacking your opponents into supermajority districts to get more bare majorities for yourself pretty much goes away.)

Rather than push for being decisive in many districts, Democrats settled for being dominant in a few: poof!

Yes, this is a concrete example, its just not a concrete example of the thing you are complaining about above. It has nothing to do with the number of representatives, but with the use of single-member districts which can be gamed by line-drawing. More or less districts, except at degenerate extremes, doesn't really make a big difference to this.

Ah, Dicely: yet another example of someone educated beyond his intelligence.

"I don't even know what you mean by 'population compels representation.'"

"Taxation without representation is tyranny." Rings a bell, Dice?

But it's bootless to keep explaining basic math and civics to this guy: he's hopeless.

"I don't even know what you mean by 'population compels representation.'"

"Taxation without representation is tyranny." Rings a bell, Dice?

Yeah, its just totally irrelevant to any of the arguments you've made: it doesn't say "population compels representation" or anything similar, nor does it support any of the arguments you've made about the number of representatives. It simply means that the people decisions imposing compulsory burdens (like taxations) on the people must be democratically accountable to the public: it says nothing about the detailed mechanics of representation.

Instead of quoting irrelevant well-worn quotations that relate to your comments only in that they share a single word (in the case, "representation"), try to come up with a coherent argument for your position.

But it's bootless to keep explaining basic math and civics to this guy: he's hopeless.

Yeah, sure, that's exactly why your rants here aren't working. No one but you understands basic math and civics. Whatever.

Coherent argument?

Goodness, the man is walking around with an aneurysm in his head, and he's barking mad and can't get anyone to listen to his raving and drooling.

Again, let's go back to the Constitution:

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution requires that:

--the House Representatives be apportioned among the several States according to their respective populations;

--the number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every 30,000 persons;

--each State shall have at least one Representative; and,

--the reapportionment shall occur once every 10 years as a result of the decennial census.

The key word here is apportioned; there is nothing in there that says that representation shall be compelled by population. A minimum is set for 30,000 persons BUT there is NO MAXIMUM. It does say that the number of Representatives will be apportioned AFTER one Representative is guaranteed for each state.

That's where the STATUTE that I cited earlier comes in (which Americanista dismissed and had a tittering little laugh about). The Statute is what then goes round robin and apportions the remaining Representatives to each state based on a formula.

Don't like it? Change the formula.

Americanista needs medical help if he thinks he's the smart one here.

I'm thinking the poor bastard will go catatonic if we try to explain the Electoral College to him...

As noted, there's no point: none so blind as them that won't see.

If conservatives tried to impose (as in fact, they DID impose, but that's history, another lost subject to y'all) a system restricting representation to the current #, progressives -- I hope -- would rise up against it.

But because this was done 80 years ago,you've never stopped to think: why is this a good idea?

Typical.

Progressives will evidently come up with literally ANY concept (proportional representation? ye gods) rather than the old-fashioned notion that "We, the People" rule, and that government exists to protect our rights.

You simply cannot argue the Constitution requires zero-sum apportionment without hallucinating. Not only is that not so, for the first 130 years of the Republic, each Census ADDED representatives, as states added population and the nation added states.

So much for Pale's notion of what the Constitution means. Noting that the population has TRIPLED without adding a single representative, contradicting the first 130 years of our history, isn't "the detailed mechanics" of apportionment (which you guys don't understand anyway), it's the PRINCIPLE.

Dice is just pitiful, but it's a mitzvah to help the handicapped. So try to follow this, Dice: the Founders initially sought to claim rights as colonists which they would have had as Englishmen, namely that the right to tax themselves, when they rejected the Parliament's decision to impose taxes on them because they had no representatives in Parliament.

The arguments made at the time were PRECISELY that "population compels representation". That is why the colonies had self-government in the first place, it was the principal argument that Franklin made in London, and it was the one rejected by the Crown: the colonies did not have the right to tax themselves, because the Crown had not granted that right. The Crown's position was that the mere existence of a population did NOT compel self-government.

That was how we became a Revolution, yanno: the Declaration, er, declared that rights are not granted, and that governments exist to protect 'em.

That's the principle from which redistricting ought to be approached as a practical problem, which is where your innumeracy collides with your ignorance of history and civics.

Look at ANY redistricting problem you can name -- apportioning fewer seats among a larger population in the Northeast, creating new districts in Arizona and California, moving district lines in Texas -- and apply the principle that you can ADD seats -- which Pale hallucinates is 'changing the formula' -- instead of the zero-sum approach you guys have swallowed whole like an anvil, and the solutions become exponentially better.

Look at those same problems without the option of adding representatives, contradicting the principle on which the nation was founded, and you get -- the issues of the post and this thread, only WITHOUT any actual solution.

It really is impressive, how you guys compound your initial ignorance and stupidity with rejecting a sound observation along the lines of 2+2 > 3 because somebody observed you were ignorant of it, and stupid to reject it when it was pointed out to you.

Again, typical of progressives.

That was how we became a Revolution, yanno: the Declaration, er, declared that rights are not granted, and that governments exist to protect 'em.

Yes, but we're not governed by the Declaration of Independence.

Did you miss the part where the Constitution does not compel representation based on population?

You talk about these things like you're the smartest guy in the room and yet everyone is laughing at you as you make a ridiculous fool out of yourself trying to argue something that doesn't even exist.

dyaknowwhutimeen?

Actually, Pale, there WERE folks who argued that population does not compel representation during the decades immediately after the Founding.

They advocated that as population grew on the frontier, we shouldn't add states, nor representatives in Congress, but should continue to govern the country from the original 13 (well, 14 and 15, as a couple new ones had already been added for different reasons).

Their opponents, who prevailed, founded the Democratic Party.

Get a clue.

迅雷5 web迅雷|acdsee9.0|Tom skype ppstream 新浪uc photoshop8.0 pplive qd铃声 来电铃声 经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片