Partisan crooked CA Democratic politicians won't be able to draw districts to their advantage anymore if it did!
CA people: did prop 11 pass?
- Thread starter alphatarget1
- Start date
Proposition 11 Redistricting
Choice Votes %
Yes 4,705,578 50.5%
No 4,604,655 49.5%
100% of precincts reporting
Updated 11/06 9:30PM
It was passed by crooked Democrats, obviously.
edit: Including me
Choice Votes %
Yes 4,705,578 50.5%
No 4,604,655 49.5%
100% of precincts reporting
Updated 11/06 9:30PM
It was passed by crooked Democrats, obviously.
edit: Including me
I understand to the OP "crooked" and "democrat" are synonyms, but I voted no and think our state will pay a big price and our nation some price as well for passing this.
Putting the other issues to the side, you have most states continuing to have partisan districting; a state who changes that puts their party at a disadvantage.
If we could move to non-partisan districting nationally, it'd be fine, but apparently, we can't.
Having said all that, this specific plan had its own problems - one summary:
"blah blah blah we are democrats we deserve power and we'll gerrymander all we want to keep our power"
I voted straighted democrat and I voted Yes. California has some of the most gerrymandered districts in the nation.
I thought you are quoting it from somewhere.
Having 5 republicans and 5 democrats will only mean that the boundaries drawn will be fair.
Let's have all the blue states end gerrymandering, and all the red states continue it, so that the Republicans are far overrepresented nationally.
As I said, I don't think a lot of the people who thought they were voting for 'ending gerrymandering' understood the flaws of this plan.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,061
- 14,474
- 146
Compared to the gerrymandering in Texas, Kahleeforneeya politicians are amateurs...
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/...dering-texas-style.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A41782-2004Oct18.html
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/a...-of-texas-gerrymander/
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/...dering-texas-style.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../A41782-2004Oct18.html
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/a...-of-texas-gerrymander/
I don't give a crap about representatives of both of the parties nationally. Districts are supposed to adequately represent their constituents, period. Two wrongs don't make a right, and I'm sure there are efforts to end gerrymandering in other states as well. Most voters (other than partisan hacks) do not approve of this. CA is once again leading the nation with this proposition.
techs
Lifer
- Sep 26, 2000
- 28,559
- 4
- 0
Yes, with a state like Texas winning Supreme Court approval to re-district solely on the grounds of political affiliation and having done so, its great to know that California will have fair redistricting. Giving Texas Republicans an advantage over all the citizens of California.
It's as if California brought a grapefruit to a gun fight.
It's as if California brought a grapefruit to a gun fight.
Tom DeLay (a crook) got voted out back in 06 by a Democrat I think. The Democrat got voted out this time around though.
Craig PMed for clarification:
The fear of every person who might otherwise wish to be moral is the fear that if he does he will be taken advantage of. And this is not a meaningless risk. It's why we talk of moral courage and it's why those who have it find a place in history. The soul longs for justice but the flesh fears more pain. But everything we really fear has already happened. We fear a pain that is burried and happened long ago. We were crucified and don't remember. Jesus went on the cross to tell us who we are and what we would be if we joined him there.
No evil can happen to a good man in this world or the next. A saying.
Thank you for clarifying. I don't entirely agree; it's an insightful point carried too far, IMO.
It takes moral past 'right' and into 'unfair to you'. Like a policy of never fighting any lawsuit against you, always simply paying the amount demanded, however meritless.
Politics is inherently about the temporal, with some mixing of attempts to claim morality for the policies. If you are going to say the temporal is unimportant, avoid politics.
But if you don't do that, then it's not wrong to want fairness.
Gerryandering is an inherently partisan process that is by most fair analysis unfair to the minority party.
But it's also done by nearly every state. That creates a 'balance' and a situation which, while not perfect, is more 'fair' than only one side doing it. In this case, two wrong don'tmake a right, but they are less wrong than only one wrong because the wrongs balance each other. I've always though of the 'two wrongs' saying more as one side throwing a rock through a window and then the other side doing it; if the first side steals a vote, the other side stealing one do is actually arguably more 'right'.
And for one party to gerrymander and get extra seats, and the other party to not do so and have a 'fair' balance that gives it fewer seats, is not 'right', not 'fair'.
I prefer the system to have equal, balancing unfairness, to not only letting either side have the advantage, rewarded for abusing power, but the side that has a harmful agenda.
How satisfying is it to me we've done right as the Republicans harm so many people, to say, 'well, I know my ending gerrymandering in California gave them the majority ijn Congress to do this harm, but I sleep well at night knowing that gerrymandering is over, whatever the result in screwing the public nationally be letting Repubilcans have more than their share of political representation'.
I think it's a stretch to apply the moral concept that the temporal is unimportant, to take sides in the debate about how to manage temporal power.
Even Jesus, you might recall, got a little pissed off by the Republicans who set up shop in the temple for temporal gain. Even the bible calls for fairness in settling financial disputes.
While it goes pretty far in suggesting to give a needy man the clothing off your back, I'm not sure it advocates one guy owning all the clothing in society by going around asking for all the clothes one persn at a time. At some point he's not needy, and the Republicans now are not 'needy' in wanting to have a monopoly on gerrymandering, and are not entitled to the handing over of an unfair advantage.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
I have seen districts that are connected by a rail line to claim that areas are contingious
Computerized mapping will work by taking into account physical boundaries and then tempered by communities.
Computerized mapping will work by taking into account physical boundaries and then tempered by communities.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Political redistricting is used for political gain.
By having the computerized mapping trim it down to tweaking or allowing community knowledge tofine tune boundaries, it can force politicians to actually represent their district.
And if they are cut out of their old district areas, then let them compete.
Computer programs could be used for fairer lines, but all I've heard of is their being used to better optimize the political benefit to the dominant party - making it more 'unfair'.
- Oct 30, 2000
- 42,589
- 5
- 0
Technology can be used or abused.
Presently that is how the gerrymandering is optimized. Locate blocks of votes and figure a way of linking them together.
The other way is to take the total population and figure out how many representives will be supported. then start to dice up the state into chunks starting from some physical point and working from there using the technology.
But it means screwing with the political boundaries.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter