SOCIAL: Prop 11

[Randall Isaac]

    I'm sure everyone's already voted, but here's my response anyway:

    The proposition states that a certain number of Dems, Repubs, AND 
independents have to agree on the district boundries.  Could they all 
collude?  Sure, I guess so, but then we wouldn't have districts any 
worse than we have now, and at least someone could sue that they didn't 
follow the requirements to honor geographic and community boundaries.  
It would probably prevent the worst of the gerrymandering, even if the 
commissioners were in collusion.
    And again, I don't agree with the logic that we should judge the 
process based on whether our side wins or not.  I'd like to see more 
progressive legislators as well, but the current non-integrated system 
results in more leftward and more rightward candidates being elected, 
and the result is the gridlock you see now.  A few moderates can go a 
long way towards forging a consensus.  If we take the view that our side 
has to win completely, we're just not going to get much done.
    One last point: anyone who thinks that the current Democratic 
domination of the CA legislature is going to last forever is kidding 
themselves.  The pendulum will swing back, and you are *really* not 
going to like it when a Republican-controlled legislature redraws the 
district map to suit its membership.

Randall

Tom Radulovich wrote:
> All,
>
> I fail to see how Prop 11 will result in competitive electoral 
> districts. I think it is likely to result in the same number of "safe" 
> districts for the two parties, but with more safe Republican districts.
>
> This has to do with the composition of the commission. It is composed 
> of 12 members, of which four must be Democrats, four Republicans, and 
> four decline-to-state or minor-party representatives.
>
> The Democratic and Republican representatives will certainly want to 
> create safe districts for members of their own parties, and if they 
> get together, they can craft an electoral map that creates the 
> greatest possible number of safe partisan districts for both parties. 
> Because Prop 11 gives Democrats and Republicans equal representation, 
> despite a statewide electorate that tilts in favor of the Democrats 
> (32.5% Republican, 43.8% Democrat, 19.5% no party), the electoral 
> districts will be more favorable to the Republicans than the current 
> ones, but probably no less partisan.
>
> That said, are 'safe' districts bad? Swing districts, with roughly 
> equal numbers of Republican and Democratic voters, do exist in 
> California, and they tend to elect moderates of either party, who are 
> likely to fear a challenge from the other party in their next 
> election. In my experience, Democrats from swing districts don't want 
> to be seen to be soft on crime, gay-friendly, or too 'liberal' 
> generally, and have to raise big political war chests to fight off the 
> next partisan challenge; while winning these swing districts may 
> increase Democratic majorities (or Republican majorities, as the 
> political winds shift the other direction), these Democrats pull the 
> party towards the US political center. Considering that so many of the 
> things I care about – environmental sustainability, social justice, 
> civil rights, world-centric morality, etc. – are, sadly, the province 
> of only one of the major parties (and only part of the time), and that 
> the US political 'center' is quite far to the right of most developed 
> countries, I'm not sure a more 'centrist' legislature is such a great 
> idea right now.
>
> While Prop 11 promises to make redistricting non-partisan, the makeup 
> of its commission institutionalizes partisanship. Beware of anything 
> that promises to take the politics out of politics; it's still 
> politics, but with new winners and losers. I'm voting no on Prop 11.
>
> Best,
>
> Tom
> _______________________________________________
> Social mailing list
> Social at lists.deeptrouble.com
> http://lists.deeptrouble.com/listinfo.cgi/social-deeptrouble.com
>