Calblog

While i'm in favor of redistricting reform, i'm not sure you'll actually find that the current legislature is out of touch with the state's voters.

Gerrymander reform is easily one of the greatest needs in this state. I hope to hear more on this in the future. Arnold needs to go 'Terminator' on this issue and help redistrict some of the looniest freaks out of the California Legislature.

The liberal democrats gerrymandered the hell out of the CA district map in 2000, and Gray Davis supported it.

This is the most partisan map CA has ever had. I know, I had to research the history of CA redistricting for work. The reason this map is so bad is that it is very unusual for 1 party to dominate both parts of the state legislature AND control the governor's office.

Texas led the way by revisiting their democrat-gerrymandered map to ensure more seats for republicans.

If Schwarzenegger gets his way on prop 62 AND on redistricting, the CA legislature will become far more moderate, shifting considerably to the right, and we will finally be rid of this constant battle against left-wing legislation that imperils our businesses and economy.

There are MANY Republicans that are not being adequately represented because of the current map.

Let's shuck the redistricting monkey AND the girlie-men legislature, and lets have open primaries - if both cement-shoe parties hate it, it must b e good.

Answering the original rhetorical question, I know Jackie lives in Echo Park, and I believe that's her district as well as part of East L.A. In other words, a largely Latino area with a few mostly very liberal white gentrifying white people. I'd imagine she succeeds by giving things away to the former and by being comfortably liberal for the latter.

One of her funny-but-sad giveways was $400,000 for a mural or statue or something to Quetzacotl for an ELA park. IIRC, that was at the height of the budget crisis.

aphrael--

You're probably right that the legislature's majority reflects the state's democrat majority, but the numbers would be a lot more even without the gerrymander.

Bush will lose CA 55-45% (2-party vote), the legislature is more like 65-35%. Worse, if the attitudes of the state change (as they have several times in the recent past), the gerrymander will leave the legislature firmly in the democrat's hands. The Republicans can only get legislative parity with a landslide.

So the problem isn't that the legislature is substantially different than the population as of the time the districts were drawn, but rather that it frustrates any changes, and has the power to perpetuate the situation the next time districts are drawn.

keith (and others)--

The Prop 62 open primary will pass, and utterly fail to fix the situation. It makes the RASH assumption that members of a district's dominant party will challenge an incumbant of their own party.

One can do that, but you had better win, or you and your supporters won't get so much as a parking space rezoned until the end of time. Which makes opponents and their supporteres and contributers (given mandatory reporting) rather hard to come by.

What you will see are not centrist candidates but fringe Republicans and Democrats as the challengers, because they're the only ones who don't care about the repercussions.

Remember Louisianna got David Duke vs a known crook for governor under this system.

Kevin,

While Prop 62 is not a panacea, you have to admit it will help get more moderates elected.

The fact is, the 'fringe' candidates stand no chance in an open system. Extreme candiates only have a shot in a closed primary, look at howard dean for example.

In strongly Republican and strongly Democrat districts, the top 2 vote getters will be same-party. The party has no interest at that point because no matter what, one of its candidates is getting elected. You honestly think the democrat party is going to invest money to screw over a moderate liberal? You honestly think a moderate liberal who ends up in a runoff against a extreme liberal is going to get excommunicated from the party?

Think about this: If Lieberman and Dean were facing off for President, the democrats would be officially neutral. They aren't going to get involved in a party civil war over 1 election.

Contrast that with McClintock's bid in the recall election, which could have cost Schwarzenegger the election and put Bustamante in office! Now THAT kind of vote-splitting will get the party pissed at you, because it shows you are not a team player.

What do you think will happen in one-party districts where the incumbant has held a seat for 20 years? If you think that supporters of a challenger are going to be fondly remembered, you obviously don't understand machine politics. Consider charmers such as Maxine Waters. Do you really think she won't do her level best to screw anyone who challenges her, or who supports anyone who challenges her?

By your argument sitting presidents would be challenged all the time. But in reality they are only challenged if they are too moderate. Witness Carter and Nixon. Johnson was only challenged because of the war, and even then Gene McCarthy could only do it because campaign laws allowed anonymous donations -- he got 4 millionaires to back him on the condidtion they wouldn't be named, for fear of backlash by the Johnson machine. Can't do that anymore -- one of the reasons McCarthy opposes campaign finance laws.

BTW, Kaltes, you seem to be talking about open seats, where the primary system already offers many choices. It's challenges to occupied seats that I doubt there will be any of.

And why are moderates a good thing? Are principles bad?

Kevin, I get your point about the CA 55-45% 2-party vote, while the crazed legislature is more like 65-35%.
I liked the open primary because then I could vote for a loser on the other team's ticket and feel like I was throwing a "no" vote on them, forcing them to evaluate those numbers - like a vote for Sharpton. ;-)

#1. Not every seat is filled by very senior person. There are many who could be challenged, and even the old dinosaurs who couldn't be have to retire sometime

#2. Partisanship is not the same as principles. Extreme political beliefs are simply not representative. Every constituency has large numbers of both liberals and conservatives (except maybe DC), so moderate candidates better represent everyone. The only reason we are left with candidates that are not moderate is that the mdoerate vote gets split by the partisan primary system, and there is no moderate choice in the general election.

An open primary will finally stop splitting the moderate vote.

#3. The 'it won't be effective' argument is impotent and easily turned. Watch: if you don't think Prop 62 will make a difference, why bother opposing it? See? The only way to argue effectiveness is if you concede that the effects are positive and there are costs that weigh against these positive effects. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing that you think the effect of 62, if it works, will be negative. Arguing that it will not fulfill its stated goal results in you arguing against yourself.

I think the Yes on 62 people have a point.

Given how gerrymandered our current legislature is, elected officials are more likely to be tossed out by their own party than in the general. And the reason they'll be tossed out is more likely due to said candidate being insufficiently slavish to the party activists than being too liberal or conservative.

Say I was a Republican living in Jackie Goldberg's district. I would GLADLY vote for any Democrat not named Jackie Goldberg just to keep her out. If most Republicans and independants followed suit, and were joined by at least 35-40% of Democrats, it would be enough to toss out JG once and for all.

True, now that JG is an incumbent, no Primary challenge is likely. But she will be termed out in '06, at which time she will likely run for the State Senate. And since she is NOT the incumbent in the State Senate yet, Democratic officials do not have to fear payback by challenging her.

Prop. 62 is fundamentally broken. I think it's silly, because it denies the right of members of a party to decide who represents them in a general election, and makes sure only two names end up on the general election ballot. But I've got to think that whoever put this thing together can't do math.

Suppose three relatively evenly-matched members of party A and two relatively evenly-matched members of party B seek the same office. B1 & B2 have a good chance of being on the general election ballot even if the district normally gives party A 60/40 wins.

"it denies the right of members of a party to decide who represents them in a general election"

Absolutely wrong. If it did this, it would be unconstitutional. The political parties can hold their own primaries to pick the 'official' republican, democrat, etc candidate, the only change is the parties can't EXCLUDE the non-official party members from running. That means MORE choice, not less.

Out of this larger playing field, everyone votes, and the top two vote getters proceed to a run-off.

"Suppose three relatively evenly-matched members of party A and two relatively evenly-matched members of party B seek the same office. B1 & B2 have a good chance of being on the general election ballot even if the district normally gives party A 60/40 wins."

That simply doesn't happen in real life. You will never have 5 candidates running together in a 3-way and 2-way dead heat. Even in your contrived example, the Party A voters will be able to vote for the B candidate closer to their views, thus ensuring the overall winner is more moderate.

The reality is, however, that Party A would officially endorse one of its candidates and spend considerable money to promote the 'official' choice. If the chosen candidate can't pull ahead of the other two despite all that, he doesnt deserve to win.

Parties will still have power after 62, they just won't have as much power, and elections won't be as strongly partisan as they are now. Even with a 60/40 A/B split, the best candidate is a moderate A party member, and in an open primary that is exactly who has the best chances of getting elected.

If 2 A party candidates end up in the runoff, the 40% B party vote will be cast for the more moderate of the 2.

Sorry, but we do get less choice. We're not going to have three rounds of elections (party primary - open primary - general) here in the real world. And only allowing the top two in the general allows some really ludicrous gaming of the system; the five-way tie was a bit contrived to make the math easier, but the party with the fewest serious candidates has a huge advantage under 62. What we'd get instead is the end of meaningful primaries, as the parties would do everything they can to make sure only one serious candidate per party is on the ballot.

Besides, why are you making the assumption that moderates are inherently better, or that it's a good thing for the candidate's views to be as close to each other as possible?

dave,

no, moderates are inherently better because they better represent districts with a large number of both liberals and conservatives, which is to say almost evey district.

If you have a 60% republican 40% democrat district, it is better to have a moderate republican in charge because he best represents that constituency. Putting an extremely conservative republican in charge ensures that 40% of the constituency has no voice.

If the goal of democracy or a republic is to put leaders in place who represent their constituencies, then prop 62 is a big help.

I wouldn't mind if the republicans had extra power, but the fact is the opposite is true in California, and "I'll takes what I can gets."

Personally I would LOVE to see california's electoral votes split up instead of being winner-take-all. That would be a huge help to republican candidates.

Are you looking where to buy soma online ? Here is place where you can order cheapest diet pills online - just visite our site http://www.online-soma-here.com .

Please check out some relevant pages dedicated to insurance quotes insurance quotes http://insurance-quotes.rulo.biz/ poker poker http://poker.rulo.biz/ debt consolidation loans debt consolidation loans http://debt-consolidation-loans.rulo.biz/ bad credit auto loans bad credit auto loans http://bad-credit-auto-loans.rulo.biz/ countrywide home loans countrywide home loans http://countrywide-home-loans.rulo.biz/ unsecured loans unsecured loans http://unsecured-loans.rulo.biz/ homeowners insurance homeowners insurance http://homeowners-insurance.rulo.biz/ canadian pharmacy canadian pharmacy http://canadian-pharmacy.rulo.biz/ online pharmacies online pharmacies http://online-pharmacies.rulo.biz/ canadian pharmacies canadian pharmacies http://canadian-pharmacies.rulo.biz/ reductil reductil http://reductil.rulo.biz/ butalbital butalbital http://butalbital.rulo.biz/ propecia propecia http://propecia.rulo.biz/ clonazepam clonazepam http://clonazepam.rulo.biz/ fluoxetine fluoxetine http://www.rulo.biz/ wellbutrin wellbutrin http://wellbutrin.rulo.biz/ slots slots http://slots.rulo.biz/ black jack black jack http://black-jack.rulo.biz/ craps craps http://craps.rulo.biz/ roulette roulette http://roulette.rulo.biz/ ... Thanks!!!