Big, big issue, redistricting, for rural areas in Michigan.
The Future of Redistricting and Rural America
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
A discussion of policy, politics and culture in government and society.
As rural areas are seeing a decrease in population, they are sure to be representated by fewer legislators once re-districting occurs. I do think that this is quite unfortunate, as the new districts will make it harder to preserve the interests of rural areas. This issue is very relatable to me, since i grew up in a small town in michigan, 200 miles away from anything that could be considered urban. Perhaps the district lines could be drawn in a way that each district has close to the same amount of urban, suburban and rural areas. This way, each representative would have no choice but to be concerned for the well-being of all three types of areas.
ReplyDeleteJosh, that is a very interesting concept - to draw district lines to include urban, suburban and rural areas. It is certainly a creative attempt to ensure elected officials take into account the needs of the trifecta of populations. I do believe, however, that this simply is not plausible, i.e. the U.P. (what's our "urban center"?). What most intrigued me about this article is its implications for public education. Resources allocated for schools in urban areas have always been a hot topic among educators with pleas for a more equitable share of funding. But it seems as though that, with these demographic/population trends, greater political power will likely be coming to urban districts. With growing support for the interests of urban and suburban school districts, who will come to support the rural school districts? These are typically high poverty areas but sparsely populated. Yet, these are the areas on which this nation was founded. Akin to the wiping out of small farms, our small schools are a gravely threatened species. And both make me equally nervous about the future of our country.
ReplyDeleteThis concept is relevant to what is going to be happening within the next few months to the state of Michigan. Besides losing seats from redistricting in the house because of loss of population from Michigan's suffering economy, it is also going to take a toll on our rural areas especially the upper peninsula. This is area is unique because of our natural resources, large freshwater sources and beautiful outdoors. What bothers me most of the redistricting is the fact that we are losing great representatives that are familiar with our area and know the importance of the unique characteristics that define the upper peninsula. Hopefully, there can be some common ground when it comes to redistricting and keeping representatives that are in tuned with our wants and needs as a rural area. Jameson had it right in the article when he said “If we pull together as rural legislators, with just a couple of people from other parts of the state, we can win a vote.”
ReplyDeleteWhat if we just redid the party system so that there was a rural party, an urban party and a suburban party represented?
ReplyDeleteObviously, dense, urban areas would have higher representation, but rural areas would control natural resources and farmers. The surburbs would control the work force.
(In response to Josh's idea- and the fact that I despise the party options in the US.)
I would hope that there can be some common ground on this issue when our legislators draw the new lines. The Upper Peninsula, I believe, will be the hardest hit by an urban representative body, but this is a fact that the UP has been dealing with for many years. It has been seen as the "money waster" of Michigan. The state's money rarely sees its way up here. The main thing that scares me about this article is that it seems like the problem will only get worse. I don't see how the rural areas will gain enough votes to sway the urban majority into any type of compromise. The only bright side to this argument (in a twisted kind of way) is that Michigan urban centers aren't exactly booming right now, and the effects seen in other states might not be as projected in ours.
ReplyDeleteI think that this article is very interesting and relevant to all of us who currently reside in Northern Michigan. Redistricting has always affected rural areas of Michigan negatively, and I believe that something should definitely be done to change the process. Not only because of the effects in the voting trends and education, but also because the major urban centers of Michigan particularly are experiencing a lot of turmoil lately. The fuel that has fed urban areas like Detroit for many years, the auto industry, seems to be in a permanent decline. If redistricting places more legislative power in the hands of urban areas their economic issues will surely take the center stage of public policy leaving rural areas in the dust. I agree with Callie that education may be affected the most.
ReplyDeleteThe idea of combining rural, suburban, and urban districts is valid, however, as Callie argued earlier it is not possible in the U.P.
Maybe we could draw new lines that are focused on becoming more bipartisan rather than divided along rural or urban lines. This balance of party power could have the effect of creating a more balanced government which may provide new bipartisan innovation that could revamp the failing urban centers as well as rural areas.
Hopefully after redistricting those rural areas will not go unnoticed. Rural areas need the most attention in regards to poverty and unemployment (look at West Virginia). Urban and Sub-urban areas have more people, therefore a cumulatively louder voice when an issue affects them directly. What about those who live in small communities? Is the government going to listen to 20 people protesting an issue or 200? I personally believe it doesn't necessarily matter what one is fighting for, but rather how many people are on the bandwagon. That's why rural areas need to have equal representation.
ReplyDeleteIvana, I kind of agree with you with the party separation the way you have it. But we all know if will never happen. We need to find better ways to redistrict, so everyone is voiced equally. Times are changing, people are migrating for work, family or other reason. So the need to redistrict is upon us and we need to find better ways to deal with this vast difference in areas of living and interest. But most of all we need to figure out how to get the citizens (specially the citizens in remote rural area) to voice there opinions and interest. They often get out voiced by dense urban population and middle- and upper class citizens in suburban-urban areas. I believe improving technology in rural areas will fix this problem, but the financial situation isn't allowing this to happen.
ReplyDelete