SOCIAL: DETAILS: 'Deep Slate 2008: Yes on Prop 11

[Kelly hawk]

First, Good luck to everyone tomorrow. Even if you are working on a  
campaign I don't agree with - good luck.
Why? Because this has to be the most peronsally-involved election ever  
for so many people out there.
I've faced many anti-gay initiatives in the past, and I'm like in 10x  
deeper on this one than any one in the past.
So thanks for just being involved. I think it makes "the system" work  
better.

Until yesterday, I was yes-leaning on 11. Now I think I am convinced  
its the right thing to do, for all the reasons Randall mentions. Why  
the change? Because of this post card that appeared on http://postsecret.blogspot.com/ 
  this week (now pulled from the website):

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 8.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 35292 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.deeptrouble.com/pipermail/social-deeptrouble.com/attachments/20081103/e92894ac/attachment-0002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------



Oh god, man does this pose card a moral dilemma! But I can't condone  
it for even a moment. Democracy can't exist if people don't get an  
equal chance to have their voices heard. And so it is with Prop 11. I  
am pretty sure democrats will lose seats. But the system under prop 11  
seems about as fair a system as we're likely to ever get in this  
state, with many levels of checks and balances. I am hoping for lots  
of generally-square districts in the near future, that resemble  
communities, not old political powerbases.
I have thought of the argument that the conservative right might not  
be so generous in return. That might be true. But that makes me think  
back to 1990, when evil jack-booted thugs of the FBI under Bush #1  
thwarted a pipe bomb attack on a gay night club in Seattle just 5 days  
before it was to happen. I probably would have been there that night.  
the bombs were made, the plans were set. 400+ fags saved. For all this  
government's failings and disappointments, I am sometimes surprised.

When it comes to prop 8, I'm really, really hoping I'm not  
disappointed tomorrow!
Best wishes,
-- Kelly --




On Oct 26, 2008, at 9:49 PM, Randall Isaac wrote:

> I'm going to disagree with Deep here and urge you to vote Yes on  
> proposition 11.  Prop 11 is the latest in a long line of attempts to  
> remedy the way state senate and assembly districts are drawn.   
> Currently they are drawn by the legislature itself, which means that  
> the party in power (in this case Democrats) draws the districts with  
> one, and only one, goal in mind: to make every seat a "safe" seat,  
> so there is very little chance of it switching parties.
> Exhibit A for this approach is this map of the state assembly seats  
> for the bay area.  Does this map look like it has any logic to you?
> http://www.legislature.ca.gov/legislators_and_districts/districts/assemblydistricts_bayarea.html
>
> This is bad for voters for a couple of reasons: 1) it almost  
> guarantees that incumbents will be re-elected, seriously reducing  
> accountability; 2) districts are not drawn with any regard for  
> geographic or community cohesiveness, making it harder to organize  
> on those grounds.  Federal law prohibits gerrymandering districts on  
> the grounds of race, but it can be done for *any* other purpose, and  
> is.
>
> Prop 11 takes control of drawing state legislature districts out of  
> the legislatures hands and puts into the hands of a non-partison  
> commission.  The prop goes to almost painful lengths to make sure it  
> contains an equal number of democrats, repubs, and independents, and  
> that bipartison consensus is needed to decide the results.  It also  
> specifies that geographic and community cohesiveness is the primary  
> determinant of districts.
>
> The Bay Guardian is completely wrong in it's criticism.  If we stack  
> the commission with Democrats as they suggest, then we will have  
> exactly what we have now: districts drawn to protect Democrats.  The  
> *only* way this can work is if the commission is bipartison.  Will  
> this get more Repubs elected? Yeah, probably; if you make districts  
> more competitive, then the party in power is likely to lose more of  
> them.  But we shouldn't evaluate good government measures based on  
> whether our side benefits or not.  I believe that more logical,  
> cohesive, and competitive districts will benefit everyone.
>
> Randall
>
>
> Amandeep Jawa wrote:
>>
>> *11: No - BAD Redistricting Measure**
>> This measure changes our broken redistricting system to one that  
>> unfairly favors Republicans: This line from the Guardian puts it  
>> well: "But as Assemblymember Mark Leno points out, the makeup of  
>> this incredibly powerful commission would be dependent only on  
>> party affiliation ? five Democrats, five Republicans, and four  
>> independents. That's not an accurate reflection of California's  
>> population; Democrats far outnumber Republicans in this state. "
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com