As we approach redistricting, don’t forget Sen. Lee Schoenbeck’s excellent column on the topic

@SoDakCampaigns

As the State Legislature’s redistricting committee meetings start today, don’t forget to take a look at Senate President Pro Tempore Lee Schoenbeck’s excellent column on the topic of redistricting, along with a proposed map.  Well worth a read.

11 thoughts on “As we approach redistricting, don’t forget Sen. Lee Schoenbeck’s excellent column on the topic”

  1. Will tribal influence be diminished with this redistricting?

    Aberdeen – is there a disproportionate amount of communists in that region of SD?

    This is a fascinating problem that I would be interested in working on because I like GIS and intersection of different kinds of data (Geospatial with dispositional data, for instance).

    Color coding of population attributes (dispositions) could give a strategic input to accumulate power or diminish power for various reasons.

    I would expect that if one party controlled a state and thus the districting process, it would rewrite districts to favor the ruling party. This is human nature. It’s what happened in Arizona to diminish the influence of the tribes and liberals, and explains why a state with so many left leaning in its population can’t seem to gain control of the state legislature, and why, for instance, political operatives seem to have taken over Maricopa county through disingenuous representation of political leanings (election integrity is a core republican value write large).

    1. 1. It’s writ large.
      2. Keep recycling you election fraud claims John. You ever find those capture packets you were crowing about?

  2. John Dale I envision you working on the redistricting based solely on demographic data of the percentage of females in the population, as you have already explained how womenfolk are more prone to irrational arguments.

  3. Lee’s map was put up for discussion before granular precinct information which precludes any specific voting history consideration.

  4. Districting is always a great topic, and it involves so much more than just People. You have to align the districts along the lines of Property Ownership, Land Ownership, Business Activity, Personal Idealogies, Politics, Farming, Communities, Sub-Divisions. ITs not entirely based on “individuals” as persay a group of people who share like minded thoughts, opinions, beliefs, interests, land, and yes of course common trends.

    I have always been a proponent of very small districts 30,000 people or less. Family Sized Districts where a small portion of people share like minded interests. And that brigns some pretty funky shapes, its not a easy, 1-2-3 process, some people just choose to be part of District A than District B.

    Lets also keep in mind, that we never talk about adding or getting rid of districts, we simply keep the same 35 districts, we simply just move sub-divisions/precincts around here and there. But as the population expands and contracts, so should the Districts themselves.

    At what point do we gain districts, and what point do we lose districts?

    The People used to have 1 Voice Per 200,000 people in the U.S HOUSE OF REPS, but today, we have 1 Voice Per 700,000 People, and the REPS got far removed from the people.

    To get a honest, trusted, and loyal Government, you got to keep those REPS close to the people, the districts have to stay as small as possible, as such, the REPS share the same characteristics as the very people who elected them. You do not want to live in Sioux Falls but elect someone from Rapid City to represent you in Washington D.C – that guy will never share any of your own values or morals, or interests except for the “State” we live in. You want someone who lives in your core neighborhood.

    At some point, ‘we’ got to discuss the ability to increase and decrease the # of Districts.

    Whether its the Federal, State, Local Governments – the districts should be as small as reasonably as to maintain that common activity and belief of the people.

    IF the U.S was built on the 1 Per 30,000 People Rule like it was prior to 1902 – South Dakota would have 26 Seats in Congress, California would have 1,200 seats. We then have to control their pay, cap their pay at $15,000 or less per general sessions of 180 days or less. THis keeps the REPS in South Dakota for more than 180-220 days a year, again, close to the people. $15,000 x 10,700 REPS = $90,000,000 million a year. I bet we get a better all round ‘conservative’ government to lead the country.

    South Dakota would have at least 10 Democrat Seats, while it would have 16 Republican Seats; California would have 1,000 Republican Seats, while Democrats would control 200 Seats. The Electoral College would work so much smoothly, and better as well. Especially where the winner for President wins less than 52% of the popular vote.

    The same would be true at the State and City levels – smaller is always better.

    Right now we have 25,300 People Per 1 district in the Senate and 1 Per 12,600 People in the House; What if we increased the districts by giving the people 1 Per 12,650 in the senate (70), and 1 Per 6,321 people in the House (140). Would that not be a more accurate representation of the PEOPLE?

    As for the TRIBES – they are sovereign territories, those who claim their Sovereignty are not citizens of the State, therefore they get no “representation” in the Legislature. Except for where they incorporate themselves into the State such as Flandreau – they then would be included into the legislature, but then again, they would merely be districted on the same forumula as the rest of us 1 per 25,000 people, so that population has to be absorbed into our 35 Districts (70 House Seats).

    If you were to give Natives a greater representative rate – my way would most likely be in your favor – ‘we’ would have to shrink the size of our districts to 1 Per 12,650 people or 70 Districts (Senate). That would give the Natives who reside in Flandreau 1 District to themselves or equal Representation.

    This is why the POWER to redistrict the state shall remain in the control of the PEOPLE and their Representatives in the Legislature, and NOT some independent district commission appointed by 10 most liberal cities. You got to have an open, transparent, public process.

    Thank You,
    Mike Zitterich
    [email protected]

  5. Best part is that this is capably done by your elected officials whicha re accountable to you—versus the “Independent” Redistricting Board set up by the Democrats and pushing again for what the 4th cycle in a row–get a hint

    1. District 2 is stuck way down in the Sioux Falls area. Those responsible for redistricting in 2011 shoved 6 down there too, not realizing that there was a pattern to the district numbers that had been used for decades. It started with 1, 2, 3, etc in the NE corner of the state with following numbers working their way the eastern edge to the Sioux Falls and SE area.

      The 20’s work their way back north thru the central part and then back to the Rapid City and the SW where the 30’s are. This made it easier to actually have a idea where the districts are generally located. Can you imagine if all the numbers were eventually dispersed throughout the state, nobody would have any idea where a district is generally located.

      1. One benefit will be nutty conspiracy theorists Kaleb/Kayla Weis will be out of office due to redistricting. Need to get more fringe extremists out.

Comments are closed.