Partisan Redistricting Commission?

really .scary stuff (5.00 / 1)

am sending an email right now.

---

by: David Atkins (thereisnospoon) @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 00:45:16 AM UTC

Amazing (0.00 / 0)

WOW !!
That is amazing
How did this happen ?
There seems to be no coverage in the 'mainstream' corporate media
Let's hope that members of the commission take their responsibilities seriously

---

by: frisco @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 02:10:43 AM UTC

The Rose Institute (0.00 / 0)

It goes further than that.  The Rose Institute was originally created by Alan Heslop a Republican strategist because he felt that the Republicans in the California legislature were not getting enough information from the state for their efforts.  It was set up as a non-profit venture, but controlled  by leading members of the Republican Party.  I think if you look into Mr. Johnson's background, you will find that Steve Horn is not the only Republican he has worked for and in fact he played a very vital role in helping Republicans in other states, particularly Arizona.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 03:21:28 AM UTC

Rose Institute (0.00 / 0)

I should add that for some time, the Rose Institute lost its tax deductible status because it was openly partisan and crossed the line on what they were allowed to do.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 03:22:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is what Californians Apparently Wanted... (0.00 / 0)

When they voted for a commission that over-represents the GOP (instead of basing the membership on the proposition of registered voters.) and sets up requirements so the average voter is not going to have the time and ability to be on the commission.

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 13:26:47 PM UTC

Gogo (0.00 / 0)

NO !
This is NOT what I expected
I voted against the Demcoratic party to see California have a non-partisan reapportionment
I STILL don't want a partisan reapportionment being done
I don't want the politicians to determine who their constituents are going to be
Hopefully, this will be worked out
Hopefully

---

by: frisco @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 17:29:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Registration vs Commission (0.00 / 0)

In the 2009 report on California voter registration, there were 44.5% of voters registered as Democrats, 31.1% as Republicans, 4.3% as other, and 20% as unaligned.  The commission of 30 was set up with 10 Democrats, 10 Republicans, and 10 Independents.  

Democrats were well under-represented, Third parties unrepresented, GOP and Independents overrepresented.

All this information was available when people voted -- one of the reasons why I voted against.

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 19:11:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Then It would be about (0.00 / 0)

Then ideally that would be 13(13.35/44.5%) Democrats, 9(9.33/31.1%) Republicans, 2(4.3%) Other and 6(20%) unaligned, Instead of 10, 10 and 10.

---

by: SuperJoker @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 19:32:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That should be 1.29 for Other (0.00 / 0)

2(1.29/4.3%) Other

---

by: SuperJoker @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 19:34:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Yep. (0.00 / 0)

Based on being the slightly larger fraction, I'd probably bump the Democrats to 14, but 13 D's and 2 "others" would work.

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 20:15:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

that would be an interesting change to redistricting (4.00 / 1)

we're pretty much stuck with the current process for a decade, but by 2020 it might be worth trying to amend the law to at least make sure that the partisan levels of representation match their registration numbers.

that is, if it doesn't just make more sense to float an initiative returning us to the status quo ante.

---

by: wu ming @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 00:01:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I debated this issue with many local "good government folks" (0.00 / 0)

who heavily promoted the Commission at the time of the 2008 and 2010 elections.  I've forwarded this story to them and asked them to (1) explain why this is not reason for substantial concern or (2) to activate their networks and prevent the corruption of this process.  I'll report back in on what they say.

---

by: Seneca Doane @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 15:50:37 PM UTC

Email Sent. (0.00 / 0)

The Rose Institute has a noteworthy track record in the area of reapportionment.

http://rosereport.org/

But arguments in favor of experience and capability should take a back seat to the question of impartiality.

---

by: jjohnjj @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 17:02:32 PM UTC

Agreed, Impartiality is very important. n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: SuperJoker @ Fri Mar 18, 2011 at 17:06:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Why? (0.00 / 0)

OK, this may sound like a very simplistic question, but why does this commission need to hire a consultant?  Seriously, they are getting paid to do a job, do the job and stop wasting tax payer money by hiring consultants that are nothing but flunkies for a political ideology!

---

by: tinaburgess @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 01:58:17 AM UTC

Consultant (0.00 / 0)

The job is actually very complicated and they need staff both for the division of numbers and for any legal issues that may arrive.  There are literally thousands of laws that govern what they do and no amateur could do it without professional help.

---

by: doughnut70 @ Sat Mar 19, 2011 at 20:18:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Proportional representation would resolve gerrymandering problem (5.00 / 1)

I have long felt that a system of electing representation using proportional representation would be a more equitable method of distribution legislative seats both on the state and national level than the current system, would represent a greater portion of the population than the current winner-take-all method that I believe disenfranchises many voters (resulting in low voter turn out), and would resolve the gerrymandering problem once and for all.

The first two points go hand in hand I believe. I suspect that many non-voters do not participate in the electoral process because they do not feel that "their vote counts", thereby suppressing voter turn out and building apathy towards government.  By using a system of proportional representation, the views of more voters would be represented in the legislature, perhaps providing them with a sense of "ownership", if you will, and giving more credibility to "representative" government. Maybe a better dialog could result from this, and fewer moments, such as the horrible shooting in Arizona, would occur. The self-perceived "voiceless" would have a voice.

The way I envision the a potential application of proportional representation would be one where each political party receiving a minimal percentage of the total vote (say for arguments sake, 5% as they used in South Africa at the end of Apartheid) would be able to construct their own legislative districts using a slate of candidates from which to fill their self-delineated districts, so that every portion of the state would be represented by a member of a different political party.  For instance, Democrats in every part of the state would have a representative with whom they could communicate, as opposed to the current system where a Democratic individual in a Republican district is not currently represented by someone who shares their views.  People of all political persuasions (provided they are part of a group of significant size to have a member of the legislature) would be represented by a person who shares their political opinions more closely than is currently achieved. For example, I would suspect that there would be Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Peace and Freedom, and who knows who else, as legislators, so that any one Californian would have a diverse collection of legislators who would represent them in the Assembly, state Senate, and House of Representatives, greatly increasing the power of the individual and nearly guaranteeing representation on a multitude of issues; each person might have five or more representatives with which to communicate.  This method of selection of representation would eliminate gerrymandering altogether, rendering useless these politicized "apolitical" commissions.  It sure would make a mess of how the current legislative committee system works, but as we all know, it's not working really well right now anyway.

However ideal I feel a solution such as this to be, I do realize that those who hold the power to initiate such a change are also those who would lose most by making the change, and are therefore unlikely to take it on.  But I can dream....

---

by: FormerHumboldtian @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 20:03:40 PM UTC

I agree (0.00 / 0)

California Crackup makes the same case.  Why are we bond to this districting methods? tradition.

Assign a number of reps per county and adjust based on the most numerous.  Counties under 1% of the population are joined as a district until it equals at least 1% of pop.  A way better way to organize and it would be good riddance to our bizzare system of a single-party system checked only by a overpowered minority power. both of which don't represent CA.

---

by: CaliCon @ Sun Mar 20, 2011 at 22:24:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

the "single-party system" reflects the reality (0.00 / 0)

that a near supermajority of the state's voters support one party's candidates. if anything, proportional representation would lead to more, not less democrats at the statewide level.

when you consistently win every statewide race and a supermajority of district races, it's safe to say that you do, in fact, represent a majority of voters. which is, after all, the only meaningful metric of "representing CA" in a democracy.

that being said, i'd be in favor of perhaps switching the state senate to proportional representation, but leaving the assembly with district allocation (but doubled or tripled in size so that the cost of running races is lessened (thus making challenges easier and limiting campaign donors' influence), and so the huge lightly populated districts up in the foothills would be within a reasonably small and connected community of interest). that way the two chambers balance the other's strengths and weaknesses. we could even fold the two chambers together into one legislative body, allocated two different ways, like the german bundestag.

---

by: wu ming @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 00:14:25 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, not true... (0.00 / 0)

that a near supermajority of the state's voters support one party's candidates. if anything, proportional representation would lead to more, not less democrats at the statewide level.

In last year's general election for the state assembly, 5,034,807 votes were cast for democrats, and 4,119,939 votes were cast for republicans.  With a 5% threshold for other parties, no other parties would have representatives.  These votes would have a 44-36 majority for democrats in the assembly, significantly lower than the current 52-27 with 1 vacancy.

Of course, in a general election for proportional representation, we might see higher turnout for minor parties -- but the overall registration percentages of 40%-30% suggest that proportional representation would benefit republicans more than the democrats.

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 02:21:20 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

registration is at 44-30, not 40-30 (0.00 / 0)

and aggregating general election district race data understates statewide dem support, because there are many, many more overwhelming dem districts than GOP districts with 79-90% majorities. by the general election, you know who's winning the race in urban bay area or LA, whereas in the GOP races out in the suburbs and exurbs their voters are turning out because the races aren't all blowouts (due to the effects of the 2000 dummymander that packed dems in supersafe seats).

but even then the numbers are 55-44, in a supposed republican wave year, with huge GOP spending upticket and a massive flow of money into many CA races following citizens united.

with a PR system, i think we'd see much higher minor party numbers, on both the left and right (but mostly the left IMO), but that would continue to lock the GOP out of power, just with left political debate happening in a formal party coalition as opposed to informally in primaries and between regions of the state. conservatives are quite frankly a superminority faction in the state electorate, and shrinking fast.  

---

by: wu ming @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 08:26:28 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

True (0.00 / 0)

My bad -- since I earlier posted the registration stats, I should have remembered them.

One thing I recall is that both parties registration has declined in the last two years.  That said, the Democrats have been hovering around 44% but the GOP has dropped, with "no preference" gaining.  

Year	Dem	GOP	Other	None
2011	44.0	30.9	4.7	20.4
2009	44.5	31.1	4.3	20.0
2007	42.5	34.2	4.5	18.8
2005	43.0	34.5	4.6	17.9
2003	44.4	35.2	5.1	15.3

Eventually, I suppose, GOP support could decrease to below 22% -- around 2031 or so, if this trend continues.

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 17:09:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Source of the numbers (0.00 / 0)

http://www.sos.ca.gov/election...

Historical Voter Registration Statistics (second report)

---

by: CaliforniaCondor @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 17:12:34 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

so pro-dem? (0.00 / 0)

If California is so pro-democrat then why betwen JB1 and JB2 you only had 1 democratic governor and he was recalle?  

And lets not forget that JB didn't even have a primary this time around. Because like in elections past they knew that a far-left guy would have been chosen that couldn't win. I mean really in 30 years since JB was last governor, there was the democrats couldn't produce a standard bearer for 2010?  No one else see that as odd?  

It sounds like a party that wins on the lesser-of-two-evils strategy not on vision or leadership.

---

by: CaliCon @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 05:15:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

look at all statewide races (5.00 / 1)

republicans have not won a senate race or a presidential race since 1988. in the past decade steve poizner is the only republican who has has won any non-gubernatorial statewide elections, and that was against the incredibly weak cruz bustamante (aka the only democrat to run against schwarzeneggar in the recall election). and while the GOP has a very strong run between JB1 and prop 187, dems and GOP have split the statehouse after prop 187 (grey davis 98 and 02, schwarzeneggar 03 and 06, brown again in 10).

the state was a vote-splitting state in the 80s and early 90s, no question about it. in the past decade, it has been nearly a solid lock for the democrats. schwarzeneggar would not have made it through a primary either, that's the whole reason for the recall, to allow a moderate to bypass the GOP primary voters, after it became clear with riordan's run that the rank and file would never send up a non-fire breather. same reason why the corporate establishment pushed the redistricting and the top 2 primary, because they know the GOP rank and file will not approve the sort of candidate that can win statewide, because they openly hate a majority of the state.

governor was the GOP's last stronghold for appealing to non-GOP partisans, and my guess is that they've lost that one for good as well. it may be a lesser of two evils thing, but the state electorate has decided that the GOP is evil, and will not vote for them, not even to counterbalance a permanent democratic legislative majority (no matter who draws the district lines, i might add).

---

by: wu ming @ Mon Mar 21, 2011 at 08:14:06 AM UTC

[ Parent ]