Prop. 77, Redistricting

[madbaker]

If the polls are accurate (hah!), Proposition 77 will be defeated tomorrow.

I've supported the concept long before the proposition was put on the ballot – I said something of the sort a year or two ago on this journal, but I can't be bothered to go search it out.

My undergrad college had an institute that studied political boundaries, and has done consulting work on the issue. I've seen the seamy underbelly of the current process, whereby politicians of both parties cynically gerrymander boundaries to divide up the electorate. To my mind, it perpetuates extremists who can fire up the frothing base. Again, of both parties.

Now, I actually agree that the proposition should not have made it on the ballot, because the submitted wording differed (albeit slightly) from what was ultimately proposed. (The CA Supreme Court put it on anyway.)

For those of you who plan to vote no (or have already done so), if you're willing, please comment why. I'm not looking to pick a fight and I doubt I can change your mind. I'm just curious as to the reasons and/or motivations.

Comments

[tsgeisel.livejournal.com]

Why judges? Why are retired judges the best qualified to choose how districts are laid out? I don't especially object to the legislature choosing who the "special masters" are, because I can't think of a better method short of *me* choosing them, but I'm still not crazy about it.

I also don't really like the idea of changing the boundaries even if the voters reject the plan. And I'm not especially swayed by the arguements listed against.

This is, though, one of the few props that I think belongs there. Reapportionment of legislative districts is one of those things that *needs* to be part of the constitution.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

Fair enough. I agree on the voters rejecting part.

I don't think that retired judges could be any worse than the legislators themselves, though.

[hyla-regilla.livejournal.com]

I'm voting "No on Everything"!

usually, I'm not political... (http://www.livejournal.com/users/hyla_regilla/157149.html)

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

So... your reason for voting no on this particular proposition is the expense of the special election?

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

First, anything Arnold really wants, I am against. He's not doing a good job, and I cannot support him.

However, that said, even if I thought Prop 77 was a good idea in theory, the idea of giving retired judges that kind of power ...? Who holds them accountable? They're freaking retired! Nope ... not me.

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I believe the theory behind using retired judges is that they should be less partisan. Certainly debatable. They seemed to do a fine job the one time redistricting was thrown into the courts in 1990, but it's a point.

Under the current system, the elected legislators - of both parties - are choosing their voters. Not exactly accountable either.

[goldenstag.livejournal.com]

I don't know that there is a good way to deal with it, but frankly at this point, if Arnold is support it, it is suspect ...

Why don't I like prop 77 ?

[nitnorth.livejournal.com]

For those of you who plan to vote no (or have already done so), if you're willing, please comment why.

In my case, simply put it's because I don't trust voters any more than I trust politicians. We are talking about the same electorate that will vote for a name they know, simply because they know it, and never mind how good or bad a representative that name is likely to be. The ones who said in exit interviews from the '04 election that they voted for GW because he was an environmentalist. The ones who returned Randy Cunningham to Congress nine consecutive times.

Given a track record like that, what possible good effect can come from asking people to vote on an issue most of them don't even comprehend? There are only two possible outcomes: a rubber stamp or an automatic rejection because it's too complicated. So why bother to put it to a vote? By me, that makes no more sense than voting whether it should be legal to be a Baptist.

-- Nitnorth

--
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
 -- H.L. Mencken

[naadhira.livejournal.com]

I agree that the process is broke, but I don't think this will fix it. Handing district apportionment over to three retired judges makes me nervous. Sure, in theory they're unbiased, but as somone else said, they've got zero accountability, which to my cynical mind means their decisions go to the highest bidder.

[punkmom.livejournal.com]

I'm voting no because the same politians that are currently gerrymandering are the ones to select the retired judges to hand this task over to. With no accountablility in the selection process it doesn't strike me as the right solution. I'd love to see a nonpartisan method of setting boundaries.

Let me try to be briefer...

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

I mostly said my say (http://www.livejournal.com/users/patsmor/231362.html?thread=701378#t701378) I think that gerrymandering/redistricting is one of the biggest flaws we have in the run-ups to elections (right there with candidate funding and corporate lobbying), but I oppose this proposition.

Briefly, I oppose any change to our constitution, especially with anything as convoluted and undiscussed as this proposal (sound bites do not an educated populace make). And, I think this proposition has too many flaws, and we need to come up with a different plan.

[aastg.livejournal.com]

Most of the arguments I have against prop 77 have already been stated by others. I only have one more to add: the GOP is going for the Big Grab in California, after their success in Texas. Arnold is a poseur - he is no more an "independent" Republican than Jeb Bush, IMO, and not much more of a governor than Jesse Ventura.

That said, I agree in principle that redistricting is a good idea. I'm trying to imagine a political climate in this state in which it could be done equitably.

[hyla-regilla.livejournal.com]

my apologies. I'd like to see redistricting IF we can let disinterested parties do the division. I don't see that with this proposition... AND I am offended by the expense of the special election in the first place!

[madbaker.livejournal.com]

I'm going to take issue with the "GOP Big Grab" comment. The California GOP was complicit in the last gerrymandering - they helped redraw the districts to maintain the then-current proportional split.

I do agree with the equitable comment, though; I don't feel that this proposition is the best way to do things. However, I feel it's an improvement over the current system. It's a case of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

I'm voting for it, on the same grounds as you: It's not perfect, but it has to be better than what we've got. Politics in this state is broken, and gerrymandering makes the system worse. This has nothing to do with Arnold, the GOP, or the Dems - it's an attempt to change a thoroughly corrupt system.

Change, in this case, almost has to be an improvement. It is difficult for me to imagine how it could get any worse.

I'm saddened, but not surprised, to see that the parties' political machines are convincing voters - even thoughtful ones like those who have responded here - to leave this power in their hands. Why do you trust these people?