Bay Area Council Pushes for Constitutional Convention, Launches RepairCalifornia.org

it makes sense (0.00 / 0)

It seems increasingly obvious that a Constitutional Convention is necessary to save this state. It's time we moved beyond "if" to "how" and "when."

How:

A citizen convention. The only way how is to put two measures on the ballot as the legislative leadership can't tie their own shoes, much less pull off a smart move. The first initiative allows voters to call for a convention. The second lays out that the top 15 vote getters from each assembly district are delegates and everything is on the table. This will put representation near the original 30K representation the frames capped for the people's house, make it as easy as running for CDP to get as much interest (plus related grassroots support) as possible, and ensure that the vast majority don't expect that they will ascend to another office to stop the play-it-safe mentality that has plagued Sacramento. A citizen convention.

When:

First election with the two questions in June, election of delegates in November, take over a university at the end of finals to host the convention and a ratification vote ASAP upon completion.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 18:04:31 PM UTC

Shoes (0.00 / 0)

You're assuming the legislative leadership can find their shoes, let alone put them on, before tying them.  But I digress...

So we are looking at May/June 2010 for a Constitutional convention according to that timeline?  That sounds reasonable.

---

by: the new mike is back @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 18:17:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

only June for the first question (0.00 / 0)

On this timeline, the convention wouldn't begin until a month after the November 2010. A convention could probably be adopted in March and ratified in June 2011 (that was the timeline with Montana's 1972 convention, which totally rocks by the way).

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 18:26:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is kind of off-topic (0.00 / 0)

I think this has been discussed before on this site, but what do the people of Calitics think of open primaries? I believe it will be on the ballot next June and I want to hear different opinions before I make up my mind.

"You've slipped into my life as easily as vermouth into a glass of gin... quickly and just a bit too smooth"

---

by: phoenix @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 18:25:29 PM UTC

vote for hilarious (0.00 / 0)

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 18:29:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Lord have mercy! (0.00 / 0)

I can just imagine having Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner as our two candidates for governor because of open primaries. It's a scary thought. Thanks for the video!

"You've slipped into my life as easily as vermouth into a glass of gin... quickly and just a bit too smooth"

---

by: phoenix @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:16:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

We think it's a bad idea (5.00 / 2)

Most of us anyway.

When people tell you that open primaries are the "solution" for the state's problems, the first thing you should ask them is: what problem is it that California has that having open primaries will solve?

People who support open primaries generally try to argue that:
1) There's no important difference between political parties, and it's all partisan bickering.
2) That ideology isn't important -- "sensible people" could solve all of the state's problems.
3) That parties don't do anything valuable.
4) That you can take the average of the two main parties, and get workable, realistic policies.

If you believe these things, open primaries make sense, because they undermine the parties.  Undermining parties is what it's all about.

The problem is all 4 of the items above are wrong.  It just. ain't.  so.

For (1), the Democrats really are already pretty practical and pretty moderate.  The GOP, for the last 10 years and longer, though, is nuts.  Anti-science, anti-intellectual ideologues who don't care about policy and have no damn common sense.  The partisanship is actually one sided.  Making the Democrats weaker won't help the state.

For (2), it would be better if people honestly admitted that there are differences of principle here.  We are taxing the wrong things (sales taxes are too high, property taxes are generally too low, income taxes on rich people are too low).  David Broder-esque (or Arnold-esque) pablum about cutting spending is just mindless bullshit masquerading as common sense.  Taking a principled stand from a liberal perspective just makes more sense.

For (3), we need parties because unless you want big business, big lobbyists, and the hugely rich to be the only ones who can run for office and to have influence, the only way to get around the huge costs of running idiotic 30 second ads in our many media markets is to run grassroots, built on local organization.  Parties can do that.  There really isn't a good alternative that lets small business, ordinary folk, and the non-rich have the influence on public affairs they deserve.  Parties can be a real boon for small-d democratic control, be you from the right, left or center.

And lastly, (4).  We've been saying that 2 + 2 = 4.  The GOP says that 2 + 2 = 7 + a tea bag.  If you listen to folks like Dan Weintraub,  you just have to split the difference, and believe that 2 + 2 = 5.5 + 1/2 a tea bag.

But Dan's an idiot.  Don't do that.

---

by: mbayrob @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 02:33:36 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks for your answer (0.00 / 0)

I was leaning towards voting no, but now I am certain.  

"You've slipped into my life as easily as vermouth into a glass of gin... quickly and just a bit too smooth"

---

by: phoenix @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:14:42 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Open primaries (0.00 / 0)

empower the moderate majority in California and would prevent extremists from winning primaries and sailing through uncontested to the legislature.

---

by: modem @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 04:58:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Which extremists and Which primaries (0.00 / 0)

This is a slogan you have here.

Give us some examples of specific elections in the last 10 years where you think this would have helped more than harmed.

My sense is that when you use the word extremist, you may not mean what some of us think it means.

And if folks like Abel Maldonado are what you're pushing on the public, then, well, please!

---

by: mbayrob @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 06:48:12 AM UTC

[ Parent ]