06-22-2008, 03:54 AM
Thanks, Rob.
Some of the words you express help me.
First, as to how any previous reapportionment has been done, I am sure crooked fingers were in the pie. As a standard, keep it open and participatory. This is not my over riding concern at this juncture (borrow that trouble later!)
It is the "benefit of Hilo" and "marginalize ... Puna" that I really do not think is clear.
"...various districts are what they are...seventy or more districts..."
If by "district" you mean "Puna" , "Hilo" etc, then those districts, I contend, have little real meaning in terms of political representation.
"Hilo", as used here, might really mean Waiakea, where a council seat has been centered for some years, and that council district included other disparate precincts that have never coalesced voting power.
This is the way gerrymandering works:
get one highly homogeneous community (contained within a few precincts) with just enough votes to elect and then tack on a couple of other precincts with very different demographics so as to make the total numbers but still retain the electoral majority in that community on which the gerrymandered district is centered. The 'tack' on precincts in Council District 3 (now Yoshimoto, formerly Arakaki) are Keaau, Orchidland, etc.
Nothing in the hype about poor li'l Puna versus high-'n'-mighty Hilo truly addresses gerrymandering.
This is my point: While people scream about "no Puna representation" and "Hilo manipulation" the powers that would-be go ahead with gerrymandering and the alleged "Puna" / "Hilo" nexus becomes irrelevant. Plenty of gerrymandering can be done within Puna and/or Hilo - and it will be done if the limit of focus is on Puna and Hilo.
Rob, your post does not convince me that "Puna" and "Hilo" are units/concepts/terms useful for looking at where and how democratic representation is to be achieved.
James Weatherford, Ph.D.
15-1888 Hialoa
Hawaiian Paradise Park