Prop 11-ization of Congressional Districts

Wait 'Til the Districts are Drawn (0.00 / 0)

While I agree that it's a good idea to wait and see if the redistricting commission works before extending it's power to Congressional Districts, I think it's rather early to declare Prop 11 a failure.  

The current system is a failure; we already know that.  I don't believe, as said in a previous post, that we have "self-sorted."  The current districts have no logic to them except to create safe seats for the parties.  These gerrymandered districts do not provide evidence that the state has self-sorted.  Quite the contrary.

---

by: riversidemike @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 14:47:13 PM UTC

I voted for Prop. 11 (0.00 / 0)

but I'll almost certainly be voting against this measure.

For one thing, I want to see the new system work once before agreeing that it should be expanded (or even continued).

For another thing: for one state to change how it apportions Congressional representatives is no more than a voluntary abdication of power at the Federal level.  

---

by: aphrael @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 16:35:05 PM UTC

So... (0.00 / 0)

This was entirely predictable as a follow-on to the fake state-level reform of Prop 11.  

And I'm now waiting with bated breath for the Republicans in the Texas legislature to propose a bill to give up their ability to gerrymander Democrats out of existence... when pigs fly.  But goo-goo liberals will be able to talk themselves into this as a nice neutral reform, just like they did with Prop 11, and they're doing with Prop 14.

---

by: jsw @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 20:08:26 PM UTC

If you abuse it, you should lose it. (0.00 / 0)

Maybe one of the best signs of when a political activist has lost their way is when they think gerrymandering is a good thing.

The Legislature did not use their redistricting power in good faith; they abused it, and, frankly, they deserve to lose it.

In regard to criticisms that Prop 11 is non-representative, it's not the reform's fault that the applications came in the way they did, AND just because the applicant's demographics were very different from the state's, doesn't mean the demographics of the 14 not-yet-chosen commissioners will be demographically lopsided. (And regarding the partisan equality, which does not reflect the state's voters, a redistricting process is really not akin to a legislative process. In a way, it's a process of setting up a fair and merited playing field (should the MLB teams with the most fans, or the best record, get unrestricted power to set up every field and stadium to best serve their hitters?))

I'm willing to bet that whatever they end up producing will at least not look like a drawing of bacteria having an orgy.

---

by: TomCares @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 21:39:26 PM UTC

Complicated shapes != gerrymandering (0.00 / 0)

Really, that's just laziness substituting for argument.

1)  Overlay that with existing political and geographic borders, natural communities of interest, and ethnic communities governed by the Voting Rights Act, and get back to us about exactly how gerrymandered that area is, and to what purpose.  

2)  Also, please show that the "neutral" redistricting in other states has actually made races more competitive.  

3)  Further even if #2 is true, please explain how "competitive" races between Democrats and Republicans does anything except privilege the two incumbent parties and make those races more expensive and therefore make the winner even more beholden to their largest donors at the expense of their actual constituents (coughBlueDogscough).

Last, I note that a number of seats that everyone thought would be safe Republican seats in 2000 are now in Dem hands.  So even if you assume there was gerrymandering for incumbency, it can't survive demographic shifts.

As I've written twice before today fascinating to me that this sort of ersatz reform in California always seems to be targeted at reducing the ability of Democrats, especially liberals, to exercise political power, substituting structures which favor the largest donors and party machine politics.  And the goo-goos always fall for it, even though it won't solve the real problems.

---

by: jsw @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 04:51:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If AD64 isn't Gerrymandered, then we need a new definition (0.00 / 0)

Take a look at AD64.  It includes Riverside AND desert communities like Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage while bypassing the communities located between those two (Portions of Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont, Hemet).  How is this anything but cherrypicking?   The representatives from this district always come from the desert, which leaves Riverside and western Riverside County underrepresented.  I love the desert, but the issues are much different.

Ditto for CD44.  It includes Riverside and San Clemente!  Explain to me what those two areas have in common, except that San Clemente is a safe enclave of reliable conservative voters that will keep the GOP elected.

Geographically neither of these districts make any sense, and make it very difficult to campaign in, which, by the way, doesn't help 3rd party candidates very much either.

With respect to #3, I think it aptly explains the current situation.

I think the faultline in this discussion is that if you are currently in a safe liberal district then you like the status quo, but if you're not, then you want change.

---

by: riversidemike @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 14:27:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yes, I'm in a "safe" liberal district (0.00 / 0)

But that has nothing to do with whether I want change.  I loathe the status quo, but I really don't think that Prop 11 (or Prop 14) is going to change it except in marginal ways that will actually do more harm than good.  I don't think that the various political populations in California are demographically mixed in a way that would make many races "competitive", nor do I think that "competitive" under the current sclerotic money-driven system is much of a virtue.

We keep going back to this theory that the median voter preference in a district is the best way to get to median voter preference statewide, and that districts that look funny are always the result of gerrymandering, when they're often the result of mandates by the Voting Rights Act or raw geography.  If people really want to get to the median voter preference, fiddling with the geography and jungle primaries are not the way to do it.  But those kinds of fake reforms are all that the incumbent powers (political and monetary) will support and promote as initiatives.  Further, the various "rein in the gummint and  the legislators" initiatives that the people decided they liked because they sounded good means that the people of California also have to bear their share of the blame for the mess, instead of fobbing off all the blame on Sacramento.  Californians bought Reagan's line that government was the problem, and made it come true in spades -- just not in quite the way Reagan meant.

I'm not denying that the 2000 redistricting has some gerrymandering for incumbency.  But I don't think that the Rube Goldberg system set up by Prop 11 will fix the actual problems.

---

by: jsw @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 15:06:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Legislature definitely took too much license. (0.00 / 0)

Your response sounds as if you were responding to a statement from Rush Limbaugh. I'm a Democrat, and I certainly have no interest in empowering Republicans, but I do care about systemic integrity.

I actually don't believe that competitive districts are much of a worthy goal. Districts that are very competitive tend to have fierce primaries on both sides, where candidates who would equitably represent all their prospective constituents are hard-pressed to beat candidates who'll only represent the voters of their party. In a hypothetical district that has 70,000 Republican voters and 30,000 Democratic voters, 30,000 Democrats are effectively disenfranchised, but in a district with 50,000 of each, if the Republican wins, you end up with 50,000 Democrats who are hardly represented.

It's true that many local political boundaries have funny shapes themselves, but I think the Legislature definitely took too much license the last time the they drew districts. Oxnard should not have been put in the same Senate District as Beverly Hills, to benefit Tom McClintock, causing Sheila Kuehl's  district office to fall outside of her District. Palos Verdes probably should not have been gerrymandered into Senate District 25, which is mostly the area from Inglewood to Compton. And, I'm sure if we were to all look closely at the 177 relevant districts, we would find a great deal of such examples.

I really just think it would be nice to have merited districts, where cities and counties are not needlessly divided and where many things seem to have been extremely arbitrary, to serve individuals who happen to be in power, right now.

---

by: TomCares @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 22:47:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Not the Same Charles Munger (0.00 / 0)

Solid post... but it's not Berkshire's Charles Munger...

---

by: joemathews @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 23:35:57 PM UTC

Not the Same Charles Munger (0.00 / 0)

Solid post... but it's not Berkshire's Charles Munger...

---

by: joemathews @ Thu May 06, 2010 at 23:36:12 PM UTC

It is his son. (0.00 / 0)

Charles T. Munger, Jr., the California ballot donor, is the son of billionaire Charles T. Munger of Berkshire Hathaway.

---

by: DavidT @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 15:11:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is a partisan measure! (0.00 / 0)

When Republican-leaning states such as Florida and Texas institute an 'independent' redistricting commission for their congressional districts, then I will support it for California.  Until that happens, voting for Prop. 11 would be one of the most counter-productive, shoot-oneself-in-the-foot things any Democrat voter could possibly do.    

---

by: DanKalb @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 18:23:02 PM UTC

a minor quibble (0.00 / 0)

Prop. 11 was the measure, passed in 2008, which created a redistricting commission for Assembly + Senate.

The measure on the ballot this year, to extend that commission's ambit to include Congressional districts, has not yet been assigned a number.

---

by: aphrael @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 19:36:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Yes, thanks for the correction.  
Whatever ones thinks about the already-passed and about-to-be implemented Prop. 11 redistricting commission, please vote NO on the inclusion of congressional candidates (that will apparently be on the November ballot - no number assigned yet) for the reasons I and others have already stated.

---

by: DanKalb @ Tue May 11, 2010 at 00:02:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

absolutely. (0.00 / 0)

I voted for Prop. 11; I expect to be voting against this extension to Congresspeople.

---

by: aphrael @ Wed May 12, 2010 at 15:08:30 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Couldn't we all just fight for fairness (0.00 / 0)

Instead of fighting against good government measures in California, Democrats should fight for similar redistricting reforms in Texas and Florida. Or, maybe the federal government needs to get involved and end gerrymandering in all federal elections, so states' legislatures, controlled by opposing parties, don't perpetually try to one-up each other in unfairness.

---

by: TomCares @ Fri May 07, 2010 at 22:15:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yeah, rise above the fray! (0.00 / 0)

That has worked so well in the past.  Politics ain't beanbags.  I love the goo-goo notion that if liberals (vaguely represented by Democrats) just bend over backwards to be "fair" to the type of conservatives who control the Republican Party, then the world will be a better place.  The reality is that the two parties are NOT the same.

---

by: jsw @ Sat May 08, 2010 at 00:03:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]