Published: Friday, Oct. 21 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT
It must be pretty easy to write an article like this when your views are given
priority and your way is the way adopted.
I wonder what Mr. Mero would think if he were on the other side of the
Mr. Mero recently made a comment that Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County should
be split into as many pieces as possible, precisely to nullify liberal voters.
And now he's saying it was fair?
The headline made my jaw drop. Then I saw who the author was, and I
understood.War is peace. Slavery is freedom. Up is down. And
blatant gerrymandering is good for representative government.Got
it.Thanks, Mr. Mero.
I rarely agree with Paul Mero. But this one time when he got it completely
Democrats need to earn the votes necessary to be in charge of the redistricting
process. Stop promoting abortion, begin to defend traditional marriage, and stop
taxing and spending so much. Currently, the maps represent the
wishes of conservative voters.
This is nothing more than partisan rationalization. It deserves no credibility
To "Roland Kayser | 6:17 a.m." would have wanted them to keep Salt
Lake City and County together, essentially nullifying any conservative votes?To "CHS 85 | 12:16 a.m." be specific, what views were given
priority? How would you have split the state up so that you don't give one
group an advantage over another?
While some good points are made what is missed is the basic understanding of the
hypocracy of the entire process. The legislature has mandated that all local
government entities meet in open session to handle all but a few personnel,
proerty acquisition, and litigation matters. Yet they can "caucus in
private" in what is actually the overwhelming majority of the legislature
at anytime and for any purpose. Why not apply the same rules for all governments
levels in Utah. Of course any elected or appointed official would prefer to step
away from the shrill exchanges that often characterize our public discourse -
but that is not open government. Redistricting is a patently partisan process
and for anyone to claim otherwise is at best disengenuous and more likly just
plain descetive. I am a Republican and am embarrassed that our legislature
cannot just be open and say we drew the maps to diminish the impact of the
demorcratic party. Be honest. Of course then we would also expect them to tell
us the real truth at all times and that is not going to happen in this life.
In Orwell's 1984, words are redefined as their opposites: war = peace, love =
hate, etc. Thus has Mero redefined the word "fair." Orwell would not
@ Red ShirtHow would you split up the state to be more fair... Well dude,
you split SL County into 2 districts a northern/southern split. Then create a
Northern Utah District and a Southern/Western district. That way you create
communities of interest, the way the Constitution indicates that congressional
districts should be split. Instead of a mix, which defeats the purpose of
differentiating between senators and congressmen. Congress is not a state wide
election, congressional districts are not supposed to be representitive of the
entire population. They are supposed to combine communites of interest, and the
Avenues residents have different problems than St George residents.
If you thought the handling of HB116 and HB447 were bad, You ain't seen
Perfectly written from the perspective of the majority. When districts are
drawn to benefit the majority, it is reasonable community representation. When
the minority objects to being intentionally marginalized, it is partisan whining
and harmful to Democracy.Hey, Mr. Mero, I hear redistricting like
this has been going on in Massachusetts for years, except the Democrats are
doing it to preserve their majority representation. To preserve your integrity
and prove that this editorial is not partisan, could you publish a similar
rationalization in the Boston Globe?
Try as I might, I could not find the definition of "representative
democracy" that Mr. Mero is using. His most definitive statement seems to
be " Representative democracy does not mean agreement". The dictionary findings seem to be:Representative Democracy is
where the representative represents the people with the overriding object of
doing those things that are in the interests of people. Sort of like the
statement "Representatives are elected by the people to do the will of
God".Direct Democracy was defined as have the representative
perform exactly as the people desire. I think I would like movement
toward direct democracy better than representative democracy.In
ether case, democracy is not served by dividing people by their home address.
@RedShirtI honestly don't know how I would divide the state, but if
I closed the door and shut out everyone I don't agree with, I could come up with
I have lived in Salt lake County and Washington County and their issues and
needs are entirely different.I think the legislators were trying to
dilute democrat voters but in the processes they disfranchised everyone. Even
though I hate Utah County I rather have half of Salt lake county be grouped with
Utah County and the other half be paired with Davis County than be grouped with
Saint George or Vernal.
Mr. Mero is incorrect in stating that we have a "representative
democracy".Everyone should know by now our Legislature has
corrected this misperception and Utah children are now taught that instead of
having a type of democracy, we have a "compound constitutional
republic".So, it seems, his concerns about the damage done to
our representative democracy are, by definition, moot. That system doesn't
exist in Utah.
What seems to be the focus of this redistricting plan for those that oppose it
has been politics rather than urban and rural representation. There needs to be
a combination of both urbal and rural to work together for the good of our state
and meet the needs of it's people.
Mr. Mero presents a thoughtful argument, but I do not agree with it.
"Critics of the map . . . argue that they are unfairly represented because
their party lost an election." If Paul is suggesting that to the victors,
go the spoils, and Republicans won the last election, so they ought to be
allowed to draw the lines to their favor without the opposition whining, I
disagree. Yes, some of those who voted might, indeed, have been thinking,
"Silence those Democrats, if you get a chance, by ensuring they have no
Congressional seat they can win." Most voters, I would hope, desire
fairness. Most, of them, I believe, would rather that we practice the adage,
"I might not agree with what you say, but I'll fight for your right to say
it." Most do not want to see the state homogenized at the cost of being
unfair to Democrats. If the Democrats can win a majority in some
quadrant of the state, let them.All this said, I do not know that
the Republicans did seek to silence the Democrats. It has been said the
urban/rural mix was but a ploy, but perhaps the Republicans were honest in
wanting just that.
It is so easy for liberals to either forget or ignore the fact that in the state
wide 2010 election for governor a weak Republican beat a strong Democrat by a
margin of greater than 2 to 1. What they can't accept is that the Democratic
message doesn't resonate with conservative minded people who think individuals
should bear more personal responsibility for their lives.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments