And the trolls are out in force...

I'm sorry, poobah, I don't think He approves of this article.

I guess we will know at 5:30 today.

If democrats had majority, would they make maps that are democrat friendly?

nomores, your comment about RAF that, "He also is the one to determine who does and does not bring anything to the conversation. That way we don't have any other silly ideas floating around that are not in agreement with his." reminded of an article on CNN by LZ Granderson that I had just got done reading. Granderson said something very similar about Republicans not wanting to hear certain ideas and certainly to not be questioned about them. "When someone says 'family values,' that's to remind the audience that they don't like gay people; 'religious freedom' means 'Christianity'; and it's not really a GOP debate until a candidate attacks the 'liberal media' for asking questions they're too afraid to answer." The name of Granderson's OpEd piece today is, "Does 'secure the border' mean 'keep America white'?" and it's a great read: [ http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/21/opinion/gr... ]

poobah, how silly of you to think that is possible. RAF has deemed it not possible. That should be enough for anyone. If you were to disagree with him then you must be an OWSDEM, a troll, a liberal or some other derogatory person. Let's simply accept the fact that politicians will become increasingly corrupt and/or partisan and live with that. He also is the one to determine who does and does not bring anything to the conversation. That way we don't have any other silly ideas floating around that are not in agreement with his.

It's one thing to end up in court for being unfair, it's quite another to end up in court for being withheld from public comment and shown to lobbyists previously convicted of felonies. But that's just the way these Republicans roll, you know?

RhetoricAndFalderal said, "There is no way to make this a non-political task."

What terribly hopeless and mundane thinking. Computerized redistricting!

Until redistricting is done by a nonpartisan body, the representatives will pick their constituents. I would rather be able to pick my representative.

Maybe we should hire some Canadians to draw the maps?

There is no way to make this a non-political task. Picking people for a new committee will be partisan. Creating rules for the process will be partisan. The bottom line for all this, the two-party system has created a monster where they fight for every opportunity to give their own party a better chance to gain votes while the losing party fights for scraps via the court system to protect anything they can. Nothing new.

No2 again bringing nothing to the conversation.

"Every redistricting plan from the 1950's through the latest has ended in court."

That's another way for the Republicans to say, "We're no better than anyone else."

saxcat70 - "in court every time"
Sounds like a good reason to take it out of the politician's hands.

As RAF said, in court every time.

http://legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/pubs/im/1...

there ya go donnaw, i think this is the answer

RAF what were the outcomes in the other cases? Do you know?

RAF what were the outcomes in the other cases? Do you know?

Every redistricting plan from the 1950's through the latest has ended in court. The funny thing is many people think this is the first time this has happened, when the fact is, its just more of the same from this state for the last 60 years.