So most of Marion and Clackamas are in a district with Jefferson and Deschutes counties?

Is that where Schrader runs for re-election? Perhaps he wants Westlund to run from that district having already been elected from Deschutes County?

Don't see what the western purple counties have in common with the eastern purple counties. Are you folks aware that at one point (after 1980, if memory serves) the legislature decided legislative districts should only be on one side of the Cascades or the other because it was too difficult to represent competing needs of both sides of the mountains? That led to the infamous "helicopter district" (needed a helicopter to get around) which had a chunk of Lane, a chunk of Clackamas, and a bunch of land in between.

But then, I don't believe in the premise of "If the existing 2nd District is too Republican to win, then we should take a good look at the redistricting map and make it more competitive."

I don't think there has ever been the effort put into the 2nd district which was put into either the Wyden or Merkley races.

As many have said here previously, campaigning in rural Oregon is not like campaigning in the Portland area. My suggestion to anyone who finds this map a possibility is to travel to Marion/Polk counties, Jefferson County, Douglas County, Jackson County, Deschutes and Crook counties and see how the people on the ground there like the idea.

If people want to beat up on me for saying the actual residents of potential districts have the right to an opinion about redrawing boundaries. If so, be my guest.

When I lived in the Second CD in the 1970's, I lived in Oregon City. Now I live out Central Oregon way.

I would think that the northern half of Eastern Oregon would split from the southern half of Eastern Oregon if we get a new 6th District. The southern half would go over perhaps as far as the coast, certainly as far as Medford, to get 1/6th of the population. The northern half would have to include the Central Oregon tri-county area and then into either eastern Multnomah, Marion, or Lane to get enough population.

We also need to keep in mind growth patterns. The tri-county metro area (Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington) will grow the fastest, and that other tri-county area (Deschutes, Jefferson, and Crook) will actually by percentage grow faster, but starting with a lower population.

I would not be suprised if a new 6th district was created with the counties of Douglas, Coos, Curry, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, and Lake. This area was (and still is) informally known as the State of Jefferson. The people there have been looking to get their own representation for quite a while. Then take Lane and the 3 Central oregon counties and make that a district and leave the rest alone.

This plan links communities with very that have very little in common. It does provide political advantage to the D's.

I think a smart group of D's could draw politically advantageous congressional districts that also contain groups of communities that have common interets.

I've been around long enough to remember when my hometown of Salem was grouped together with central and eastern Oregon in the old second district. Salem had little in common with these areas.

The new fifth district pulled together a group of fairly like-minded communities in the mid-Willamette Valley. It took a while to wrestle the the district away from Denny Smith who represented the old second District. However, once we knocked out Smith, we have been pretty successful in keeping the district in Democratic control.

It's taken some work to keep the fifth district blue, but we D's would get pretty bored if we didn't get a chance to knock heads with the R's on a regular basis.

Kari - I know what the current districts look like, as do many here at BO, but could you show a map of the current districts for those who read here who do not know the current boundaries to show AN's impact of his changes in a visual manner?

None of the D incumbents are going to let go of Democrat voters without a fight, and the D legislture is not going to roll Democrat House incumbents. Even Earl, the safest D north of San Francisco, will go postal if anyone even thinks about taking a few of his liberal votes.

I don't have a guess as to how they will carve the state up, but I know how it will happen: in a backroom with DeFazio, Blumenauer and Kardon calling the shots.

My only comment about D2 and it's R leanings - Remember Al Ullman. 1957-1981, a Dem, and was the regions' rep during that time.

It can be done without the agregious gerrymandering.

That's why Oregon wouldn't dare re-district until the Census is complete and we are (rumored) to recive a 6th district - Either the State of Jefferson I mentioned above, or the north Central counties of Hood River, Wasco, Sherman, Crook, Jefferson, and Deschutes (with Gilliam and Wheeler thrown in if necessary).

But I have always wondered - why is Tillamook county in D5 when it would be more, logically, located in D1?

Oh well...such is political life I guess.

I agree with Nate. I'm a partisan Democrat, but I think it is morally wrong (and politically shortsighted) to gerrymander for partisan benefit. It was wrong when the Rs in Texas did it. It would be wrong for the Ds in Oregon to do it.

I think I'd rather try to win the 2nd as is than try the proposed one. This idea takes the urban domination of OR politics and sucks 2CD right on it. In this regard, I don't care about the partisan aspect, 2CD populace would come unglued under this map. If the object is to completely polarize E-OR this is the way to approach them and make them feel completely disenfranchised - and they don't need much excuse, now.

Further, how would you like to try to get to Benton Co from Baker Co during Primary season? Yes, I'm personalizing it, guess what, I have some experience with this. Now, who would win a (D) primary in this district? What is the political/populace center? Lane. I have colleagues from Lane that I regard dearly, but they're fish out of the water in this map.

I have an idea, how about we figure out how to win the existing 2CD? Rather than redistrict the problem out of existance, how about we address it?

People do realize that we're supposed to get another CD in 2010, if trends continue, right?

Isn't that what we should be looking towards, rather than trying to gerrymander existing seats to our advantage?

By the way, given how advantageous the current map is for the Dems, why endanger Schrader and DeFazio by messing with their CD's? Just cut Multnomah in two (which should have been done a while ago, given how many liberals are corralled in Blumenauer's CD) and make a third district out of the metro area, maybe. That's probably what will end up happening, since I don't think that Statehouse Dems want to be seen as that craven.

I would like to see Jackson County in DeFazio's District, though. We're fast becoming a bad fit for the 2nd.

I agree that in an ideal world, all districts should be competitive. On the other hand, if you divide districts based purely on geography and population without taking politics into account, there will inevitably be districts that are "safe" for one party or the other for purely demographic reasons.

Oregon has one safe R district and one safe D district. The remaining three districts are competitive. That's the result I'd expect from a neutral, non-partisan redistricting process. I see no reason to tamper with it.

Meanwhile, I wouldn't write off District 2 for the Democrats. If Democrats can win governorships in Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma, or Senate races in Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, or the Dakotas, there's no reason why a Democrat couldn't win Oregon's second district. It's just a matter of finding the right candidate and then providing meaningful state-wide support.

And if a liberal Republican (if such a thing still existed) were able to win District 3 in an honest stand-up fight ... well, more power to him.

"I would like to see Jackson County in DeFazio's District, though. We're fast becoming a bad fit for the 2nd."

Which is why the "State of Jefferson" could get that new district in 2010 and you could elect someone a lot like DeFazio.

So people are aware: The "communities of common interest" idea is actually a statutory guideline/requirement wrt redistricting in Oregon.

Pointing that out is how we beat back the ridiculous Rethug plan last time around to, among other things, make a district out of just the city of Portland (not at all a community of common interest the same way west Portland & suburbs is or east Portland & suburbs is) and separate the OSU campus from the rest of Corvallis.

Also, ditto to what Nate said - if a community of common interest is really Republican, then so be it, until we can change their minds.

The State of Jefferson wouldn't elect DeFazio if he lived here. Remember that most of the population of District 4 is outside of Southern Oregon and that a key part of DeFazio's strength in his portion of Jefferson is simply incumbency. Jackson County is the only place here in Jefferson that can fool outsiders into thinking it's almost blue. So unless the Republicans ran a candidate that alienated the base, Southern Oregon would vote overwhelmingly red...as those parts of District 2 do for Walden.

And FYI, when folks keep refering to District 2 as Eastern Oregon, over 40 percent of the voters in this district are here in Southern Oregon.

Kari, from what I've seen, the likelihood keeps growing. Various statistical polling agencies keep track of this sort of thing, and while few of them had Oregon on the list in '05 or '06, by late '07, from what I saw, we were pretty well in there, mostly due to immigration (and no, not just Mexicans. Californians are constantly setting up camp here in Jefferson country). Of course, if the economy keeps slowing like it has been, that's another matter.

Eric Parker - I presume you're referring to your post above:

"I would not be surprised if a new 6th district was created with the counties of Douglas, Coos, Curry, Jackson, Josephine, Klamath, and Lake"

Leaving aside the fact that there's not enough people in these counties for them to have their own CD, that's a pretty Republican district right there. Even if Jackson County continues to trend blue, the other counties will keep a "Jeffersonian seat" pretty red.

Gordie has a good point, though, in that Jackson County pulls a lot of the 2nd's weight in population. Probably Deschutes County accounts for another 20-30%. These are the only growing population centers in the 2nd, and they're both trending blue, so maybe there's a case to be made for keeping this district as it is and putting more effort into it in the future.

I'm open to radical changes in the congressinal districts (which will certainly be needed if we add a 6th district). What I'm not open to is carefully selecting the ditricts in order to boost the chances of Democrats winning them all. That's wrong. It's the wrong criteria to use for choosing district boundaries.

I don't know what a better criteria would be. But just about anything is better than short term political gain.

COOL! I got my own diary here! Thanks, Kari--that map is beautiful!

How do those districts work, population-wise? I'd have to wonder about the green section, especially, even if it does take a part of Multnomah.

The green section is the Blumenauer district and should go farther west in Multnomah than what's pictured. The idea is for the green, yellow and blue districts to all have a significant part of Portland.

Is that where Schrader runs for re-election? Perhaps he wants Westlund to run from that district having already been elected from Deschutes County?

Don't see what the western purple counties have in common with the eastern purple counties. Are you folks aware that at one point (after 1980, if memory serves) the legislature decided legislative districts should only be on one side of the Cascades or the other because it was too difficult to represent competing needs of both sides of the mountains?

Never heard of that rule. Is that in the statutes? If it is, I may have done a lot of planning for nothing.

But yes, the ochre district is for Schraeder. And DeFazio could easily win the purple district. Those eastern counties add up to about 1/4 of the district's population. And those counties have no less in common with the western counties than Douglas County has with Eugene. In fact, I don't care what various parts of the district have in common with each other. My goal here has been to draw five or six districts such that all of them have more Democrats than Republicans.

"If the existing 2nd District is too Republican to win, then we should take a good look at the redistricting map and make it more competitive."

I don't think there has ever been the effort put into the 2nd district which was put into either the Wyden or Merkley races.

It is BECAUSE the existing 2nd district is so GOP-heavy that most Democratic political professionals in Oregon don't bother putting much effort into winning it. Redraw the district to be competitive for Democrats, and effort will be put into it.

No, I don't think you get a good representation of the views of Oregonians if you had five safe seats - even if 3D and 2R.

It is not possible to create 5 or 6 safe Dem seats. The trade-off in my map is that our Democratic seats would be vulnerable to going Republican in a bad wave year. They would be light blue, not solid.

More on the comments later...

Thank you Chuck!

Thank you Douglas K. for "Meanwhile, I wouldn't write off District 2 for the Democrats. If Democrats can win governorships in Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma, or Senate races in Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, or the Dakotas, there's no reason why a Democrat couldn't win Oregon's second district. It's just a matter of finding the right candidate and then providing meaningful state-wide support. ".

Of course, that would require something which some might regard as radical as this map, but perhaps easier to accomplish: the idea that the energy of Oregon Democrats go to electing someone who lives either in Jackson County or somewhere E. of the Cascades. That means putting actual resources into such a race rather than just telling people in the district what they must do while never lifting a finger to help.

Of course, that would require something which some might regard as radical as this map, but perhaps easier to accomplish: the idea that the energy of Oregon Democrats go to electing someone who lives either in Jackson County or somewhere E. of the Cascades.

Well, we put some energy into getting Ben Westlund elected statewide, and he's from the east. The Bus project also went to the mat for Peter Buckley in his first state legislative bid--and won. Do you really think the "State of Jefferson" would send Buckley to Congress, though, as opposed to the State reps from HD 4 or 56?

I would think that the northern half of Eastern Oregon would split from the southern half of Eastern Oregon if we get a new 6th District. The southern half would go over perhaps as far as the coast, certainly as far as Medford, to get 1/6th of the population. The northern half would have to include the Central Oregon tri-county area and then into either eastern Multnomah, Marion, or Lane to get enough population.

That could be a good choice. I think I'd prefer the "green" district shown in the map, coupled with one that has all of east Oregon plus the Cascade Range (eastern Clackamas, Marion, Linn, Lane, and Douglas, with maybe upper Jackson as well. That district would be the token GOP district, and it seems a pity to waste Ashland's blue oasis by thrusting it into a district where they'd be outvoted ten to one.

None of the D incumbents are going to let go of Democrat voters without a fight, and the D legislture is not going to roll Democrat House incumbents. Even Earl, the safest D north of San Francisco, will go postal if anyone even thinks about taking a few of his liberal votes.

Be a pity, but that could happen. I think The Faz might find himself a little safer even, with Linn county out and Corvallis in. Blumenauer's so safe that he ought to be willing to give up some of Portland in return for the chance of a new legislative partner who would work with him.

It was wrong when the Rs in Texas did it.

It was wrong because they did it in midyear, just because they can, but it did show us what we're up against. We must prepare to gerrymander the living shit out of every state where we have the power to do so, from California to New Hampshire. Then and only then will the GOP come crying and puking to the table to talk about stopping gerrymanders in the name of "fairness".

I think I'd rather try to win the 2nd as is than try the proposed one.

Chuck, you're the one to consult on trying to win as-is. Seems to me, the efforts haven't worked so far, but if you think it can be done--like, maybe, by actually helping out the Dems who run instead of treating them the way the GOP treats the poor sap who has to take on Blumenauer--I'm listening.

What I'm not open to is carefully selecting the ditricts in order to boost the chances of Democrats winning them all. That's wrong. It's the wrong criteria to use for choosing district boundaries.

I don't know what a better criteria would be. But just about anything is better than short term political gain.

LONG-term political gain is better. Seems to me, boosting the chances of Democrats is the PRIMARY purpose of redistricting, as far as Democrats and Blue Oregon are concerned.

I'm very glad my proposed map is getting some attention.

Seems to me the "State of Jefferson" would elect a fringe right Republican based on who is most likely to give the ol' one-digit salute to the rest of the state, and so I do not favor a "State of Jefferson" district. Seems to me the coast as a whole leans Democrat, and so I favor a coastal district drawn to represent coastal interests, and if it needs more population, the district should have such additional people as should preserve the blue lean (Ashland and HD 33 for more Democrats, Yamhill and Polk if we can fit them in without too much risk).

Maybe I'm being naive in my liberalness, but I kinda think the Republicans in Eastern Oregon need representation. As much as we may think Greg Walden is a d-bag(which I think he is) he serves their needs. Redistricting for our political purposes is the same as when Tom DeLay did it in Texas -- unethical. I know redistricting is done with politics in mind more than representing the locals, but quite honestly that is old thinking that needs to be done away with.

As a coastal resident, I have to at least partly endorse Dr. Naismith (as in the creator of hoops)'s plan, even if I DO agree that one-sided political gerrymandering is immoral and shouldn't take place.

To answer Parker's question, Tillamook Co. WAS historically in the 1st CD and was only tacked onto CD5 after the 1990 census to help balance population and keep the party "balance" (it is one of the most purple counties in the state).

But ultimately, unfortunately I have to agree with the wise cynicism of the anon poster who said that this will come down to DeFazio, Blumenauer and Kardon. So don't expect any of this to happen (except possibly a sixth district dropping in someplace).

For instance, why would you put eastern Portland and Gresham with counties like Morrow or Umatilla?

To dilute the Republican voters from Pendleton. Duh.

which means those rural areas don't get the representation they deserve.

Right. If they're gonna vote for the likes of Greg Walden, we don't want them to get what they deserve. Because we who would vote for better than that would ALSO be stuck with Walden, and we don't deserve that. That's how we win a district, not by cutting up the map so we can win.

We can also win by cutting up the map. If you hate gerrymanders in principle, the thing to do is gerrymander aggressively, all over America, wherever we can, exactly ONCE. And then the Republicans will complain that they got shafted, and we can craft a binding regulation against gerrymanders.

If we do not do this, then states like Texas, Georgia and Florida will continue to draw lopsided Republican-biased states, while the blue states, like California, Illinois, and Michigan, will continue to have balanced, nonpartisan district boundaries, resulting in Republicans getting more representation than the votes would otherwise warrant. Unless, of course, some of those blue states manage to elect Republican majorities EVEN ONCE during the decade, at which point they will redraw aggressive anti-Democrat districts, and we could end up winning massive popular votes and still get Republican majorities in Congress. Is that what you'd like to see happen because you won't deign to stoop to their level?

While this plan is very partisan, there is a part of me that loves it. I live in Wasco County and I always feel like I don't have a choice. Dems are never competitive.

Either we have to work much harder to challenge a Republican here or we have to find a way to move Wasco and Hood River into a competitive district. I am tired of feeling like my vote is a throw away and I have to choice.

Sorry. I just don't believe in punishing people because they don't vote the way I want them to. We just push them further away, which is exactly what we don't want.

Don't we? There are some Joe Six-Days people I'd like to push as far away from me as possible. Their politics smells bad.

I seem to recall being told quite recently that "elections have consequences" and that therefore punishing the losers is the right and proper thing to do. Or does that only apply when Republicans win?

You call it partisanship. I call it self defense. There are certain battles that Texans love to remember. I say Democrats would do well to remember Texas!

The best way to revive the GOP in Oregon is Democratic overreach. The most tempting overreach is trying to use the gerrymander, a monster that has a way of turning on those who attempt to employ it. (See majority-minority districts throughout the south, where the consequence of creating those districts was creating the GOP dominance that brought Newt and Co. into power.)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss proportional representation. The state is sized so that one superdistrict does it -- five or six congressional seats, all elected at once, using a fully proportional voting method (ranked choices, such as Cambridge, Mass. uses for electing the city council) or a semi-proportional method (such as cumulative voting, where each voter gets one vote per seat, but can stack them, giving some, all, or none to any candidate(s), up to the total number of votes). Demolishing the single-member district model is the fastest way to get over the "urban/rural divide" --- everyone should be able to help elect a Congressional rep, whether they be a Republican in Portland or a Democrat in Umatilla. If every Oregonian could call Congress and say "I helped get you elected, you're my rep" we'd be a lot better off. Right now we don't have that for a lot of people.

There is no constitutional ban on such a system, only a congressional ban, which can be changed.

Absent that, a strictly non-partisan redistricting system (such as Iowa's) is best for the voters --- and, long term, for the Democratic Party. If Democrats want to really win voters' allegiance for the long term, treating them like chattels to be dispersed among the district fiefdoms is the wrong way to go about it.

The thing about people who go too far --- stalkers and empire builders through the ages --- is that they can never bring themselves to let up when they're winning.

Right now, the Democrats could institute a fair, neutral redistricting system that would nonetheless work to their advantage for decades, because nothing would or could do more to cement the party's image of being a party that puts the public interest first. There's no way the Republicans can oppose a fair redistricting proposal, and it would take away the most likely source of resentments that are the most likely source of GOP revival.

Seldes sez: There's no way the Republicans can oppose a fair redistricting proposal

Oh right, I think George W. Bush said something to this effect shortly after he conceded the 2000 presidential race to Al Gore. And then Tom DeLay emphasized the point when he hosted a party for all of his Democratic friends a few years later.

A decade ago, the Republicans basically hid their map in a back office, and even when one found that map on the wall, it only had Congressional districts. And why put Yamhill County in the 5th District? Because they had the power, that's why, and how dare anyone ask to see their map for legislative districts!

But in a previous redistricting, there were actually public hearings. I remember going to one hearing where parents from a N. Salem elementary school asked their entire attendance area all be in one legislative district--they didn't care which one, just that the whole school attendance area be in the same district.

THAT is the kind of discussion we should be having, not just partisan banter.

Look at the last decade or so of legislative elections along with the numbers of voters outside major parties. Those voters decided the balance of power in the legislature more than once.

This D team vs. R team nonsense ignores them.

Seriously, re-districting with a slant towards making each district 'Dem friendly' is being just a tad bit too greedy - especially in light of the last elections. It's like a football offense that 'goes to the well' one too many times. Yep, it may work for a while, but someone will get wise and take it away.

Jeff Allworth was right in saying that this would be pollitically dangerous. I may add that that danger would create a very polarizing backlash over time..and we do not want that.

We must prepare to gerrymander the living shit out of every state where we have the power to do so, from California to New Hampshire. Then and only then will the GOP come crying and puking to the table to talk about stopping gerrymanders in the name of "fairness".

I'm opposed to gerrymandering, but the idea has a certain appeal.

On the other hand, a Democratic Congress -- if they are indeed interested in fairness -- could use the upcoming session to amend the Voting Rights Act to ban partisan gerrymandering. Require that all districts be drawn with "neutral" borders, such as county lines, city limits, recognized neighborhoods or boroughs, or geographical features like freeways or rivers. Instead of requiring exact population balance, allow for some disparity -- say, the least-populated district must have 95% of the population of the most populated district. (Requiring exact population equality creates more opportunities to play games with boundaries.) That would not completely eliminate partisan-driven district selection, but at least it could get rid of bizarrely-shaped districts designed to target specific clusters of voters by party registration.

Maybe Congress could also require a neutral, open, and highly transparent process to create the districts in the first place, and allow for citizen suits if a voter asserts he or she was wrongly disenfranchised by the process. I don't see much of a down side to requiring a state to defend the fairness of its districts in court.

It might be messy for a while, but a few rounds of legal challenges should establish solid rules to ensure the majority of congressional districts are competitive. To the extent a district is non-competitive, it should be the incidental result of demographic factors rather than by political design. (For example, put Columbia County + Multnomah County + Hood River County in one district simply because they contain roughly 1/5 of the State's population and are geographically clustered together, and that district will almost always go Democratic -- but the district is selected based on neutral factors.)

At first, I thought this was partisan hackery at its worst (well, not quite worst, DeLay in Texas 2003 and Phil Burton in California 1981 still take the prize).

But now that I think about it, it's a good idea to make every district in the State more competitive.

Because I'm sure Admiral Naismith is counting in his analysis upon the Oregon Republicans remaining insane and nominating unelectable candidates, especially since both parties feathered their nests and defrauded the gullible voters into defeating Proposition 65. But beware of unintended consequences, Admiral. If the Republicans ever get their act together (and having more competitive districts around the state might just help do the trick) you may end up with two or three or four or five Congressional Republicans some day!

Don't forget unintended consequences.

Sometimes districts are drawn to "ensure" a member of a minority is elected, but does that actually happen? Sometimes there is only one white Anglo candidate and that person wins because the minority vote is divided by many minority primary candidates. Sometimes a district becomes highly partisan but the district next to it becomes partisan for the other party.

Plus the fact that Democrats have a choice: do they want to play games like Republicans, or use the power of their example to show they are better people?

And in how many legislative districts this year was the margin of victory equal to or less than the number of voters registered outside major parties?

@ Douglas K: One-person, One-Vote is a constitutional requirement, not a congressional policy. Given the advances in technology since the 1960s, the requirements for equal numbers of voters per district keep getting tighter and tighter, as they should. So it's not subject to Congressional modification. Whichever voters wind up on the short end of that stick (the ones in the larger districts who still only get one rep) will have a broad, clear, well-lit highway into federal court to have the plan tossed out and to have any legislation purporting to modify the rule to "one person, one vote, plus or minus 5%" struck down on its face.

If you want to get rid of game-playing and bizarre districts, simply adopt the Iowa model, where redistricting is a strictly non-partisan exercise and has produced some pretty competitive districts at low cost, with little fuss.

The best way to revive the GOP in Oregon is Democratic overreach. The most tempting overreach is trying to use the gerrymander, a monster that has a way of turning on those who attempt to employ it. (See majority-minority districts throughout the south, where the consequence of creating those districts was creating the GOP dominance that brought Newt and Co. into power.)

Those minority districts are not an example of overreaching. They are an example of the Newtists cleverly doing exactly what they intended to do, with exactly the intended results. They concentrated (black) Democrats into 90% D districts to create many more 55% R districts. Democrats opposed those districts, and were thwarted by Reagan judges.

Seriously, re-districting with a slant towards making each district 'Dem friendly' is being just a tad bit too greedy - especially in light of the last elections.

I do not understand this comment at all. You are aware that we WON the last elections, right? That we got a mandate for pro-Democratic change? That failure to act on that mandate would be an utter, utter BETRAYAL of the voters who voted for Democratic dominance?

now that I think about it, it's a good idea to make every district in the State more competitive.

Because I'm sure Admiral Naismith is counting in his analysis upon the Oregon Republicans remaining insane and nominating unelectable candidates, especially since both parties feathered their nests and defrauded the gullible voters into defeating Proposition 65.

Actually, I'm aware that this redistricting plan is a gamble, and my support of it should be considered a bet that the Democrats are going to be GREAT leaders and will contunie to deserve re-election by large majorities. Over and over, I've emphasised that the trade-off for 100% light blue districts instead of many solid blue districts and one solid red, is that they would ALL be that much more vulnerable to a Republican wave. Over and over. If our Democrats are going to be ordinary establishment hacks, they're better off with the existing map.

On the other hand, betting on the Republicans continuing to be fucktards who appeal only to Joe Six-Days doesn't seem all that foolish, now that you mention it. But still, a wise Democrat will focus on those things that are within her zone of control. We can't FORCE the Republicans to always be fucktards, no matter how much they seem to be inclined to it.

As a Texan whose Democratic member of Congress lost his seat because of DeLay's map work, plans like this make me even madder. We should never stoop down to their level.

Defending yourself when attacked is not "stooping to their level". It's common sense. If we bring peashooters to a gunfight, we will become a minority party again, now and forever.

Did the Republican gerrymandering work so well?
Then why is it 250-something (D) to 170-something (R) in the House?

What is, instead of bringing peashooters or guns to a fight, we make the use of weapons unnecessary?

As you say, "We" won the last election and got a mandate for change. I suggest that we did NOT get a mandate to "do to them what they did to us, only harder." That's not change, that's replaying the Hatfields vs. McCoys ad infinitum.

How about we render the gerrymander obsolete so that we can spend our time worrying about how to advance towards our policy goals (health care, a sustainable economy in a healthy environment, etc.) rather than on tactics that only infuriate voters?

Did the Republican gerrymandering work so well? Then why is it 250-something (D) to 170-something (R) in the House?

'Cause the GOP didn't control every state. Texas LOST a Democrat this year, while Georgia re-elected people who claim openly that Obama is "uppity" and intends to bomb Israel and impose a Marxist dictatorship on America. Those weren't random crackpots who said that; it was the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES from Georgia's third and tenth districts!

You want to "compromise" with people like that? Draw districts that will help get them elected? Or do we want to drag America, kicking and screaming, into the 21st Century?

@ The Admiral:

Obviously you have no problem with the way redistricting has been done in Texas and Georgia, because you propose to do the same here.

So what exactly is your complaint?

As for "compromising" with people like that, I think the search function on your machine will convince you that the word does not appear in my comments at all. I don't propose to compromise with the GOP because I don't accept the limited view of redistricting as a zero-sum game where the politicians get to pick the voters before the voters get to ratify the politicians' work.

In fact, compromise in that setting is what produces the Georgia and Texas (and California, and ...) result -- the compromise becomes incumbents vs. voters, with incumbents maximizing the number of safe seats for both major parties.

You propose to kick them when they're down and do the utmost to deny Republicans and others in Oregon any representation whatsoever.

I propose eliminating partisan redistricting entirely, either by eliminating single-member districts (best) or by adopting the nonpartisan approach that has served Iowa so well.

I have confidence that, if ably represented, voters will happily return majorities of Democratic candidates to office again and again, as they did for decades all across the country and in the US House and Senate. The Republicans are doing their best to stake their claims to the religious extremist vote, the racist vote, and the no-taxes-for-nothing-vote. If we don't overreach, then before long you'll be able to fit the Republican Party Convention in a mini-van.

<h2>But the instant our attention turns away from representing voters and advocating for their interests and turns toward taking advantage of others so that we can burrow into power and be entrenched there, regardless of how well we perform, then we're on our way out.</h2>