CA redistricting system

[fskimospy]

The difference is that you actually said my suggestion was stupid without offering any rationale as to why it was stupid, but I never said anything about you being stupid or evil. I think the irony in your "grow up" statement is therefore evident to everyone here. I'm simply suggesting the simplest rational way of constructing districts. I don't see any parallel between my suggestion and unconstitutional gerrymandering, which my suggestion is clearly designed to prevent. The counterposition, which you seem to support (though please correct me if I'm wrong on this), is that districts should be designed to facilitate benefiting from earmarks.

Sorry, you said 'ignorant or malicious' instead of 'stupid or evil'. Clearly, totally different.

I don't think there is a parallel between your suggestion and gerrymandering, I was simply using that as an example to show that more goes into a congressional district than simply the number of citizens in it.

Generally, geographic continuity is supposed to serve as a proxy for collecting people with similar interests. I mean, that's the whole point of congressional districts as opposed to statewide or nationwide elections; you want to make sure that all points of view have a voice in Congress. This comes back to my original point, a computer algorithm doesn't take that into account, and an arbitrary mandate for rectangles is silly.

As for earmarks, I mean I guess that's part of it, but it's certainly secondary. Earmarks are an important legislative tool, but they don't comprise enough of the budget to make that great a difference in the end. (unless you want to cede all discretion on spending to the executive outside of block grants)

 

[Throckmorton]

I agree with CycloWizard that the districts should be contiguous, as we generally understand contiguity. But the solution isn't necessarily requiring that they be rectangular, but that they have some maximum ratio of perimeter to area, and a maximum cross section (no long skinny giraffe necks).

You can write GIS scripts that automatically create compact contiguous polygons containing equal numbers of citizens.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Except that it is feasible, and you have made no explanation as to why it would be stupid. You have made no argument as to why they should not be rectangular. And no, a district is not meant to represent anything with respect to its inhabitants' interests: it's simply a construct by which representation is determined based on a criterion of its boundaries enclosing a population equal to that of other districts within the same state. Your unsupported contention that mandating a shape is silly, coupled with your claim that such a feat is infeasible, are ignorant at best and malicious at worst. Unless you can say why it's a silly/stupid/infeasible idea, you're far better off keeping your mouth shut.

This is obviously untrue. For example, districts that have been designed to overwhelmingly concentrate racial minorities have been declared unconstitutional in the past. If it were based solely upon population, so long as the numbers added up this would not be an issue. Also, if it were based solely upon population, gerrymandering wouldn't be an issue either, as the population numbers are roughly equal. Hell, by that logic if population is all that matters we could take one person from each house in the whole state and make that a congressional district, and then take the second person from each house, make them another district, and so on. Geography doesn't matter, right?

My argument for why they should not be rectangular is that it impedes the ability to make congressional districts with no commensurate benefit. Of course anyone who disagrees with you must be either stupid or evil, because I'm totally working to keep the system in power from an internet message board. Grow up, man.

A computer program can generate the majority of the district lines; Then a panel of humans can tweak the questionable sections.

Geographical boundaries would be the primary limits. The width of a waterway will come into play as a dividing line.
County limits/city/town limits are the next divider.
From there, use major transportation corridors to futher delinate.
From that point, you have fairly compact areas.
Computer tweaks possibly based on racial/ethnic makeup at that point.
Set up flag when the numbers do not match evenly and a corridor has to be crossed to it can be examined by people.

By pulling the initial politicas out of the equation and having only a couple of thousand of population being manipulated outside the geo rules; fairness for all comes into play.

Now, those that lose the benefits of gerrymandering will complain; but the overall fairness of the districts as a common area should be the driving force.

 

[hal2kilo]

Texas if facing a $11 to $17 BILLION budget deficit in 2011.

http://www.texastribune.org/texas-taxes/2011-budget-shortfall/

Say it isn't so! I thought that they were a model of budgetary restraint according to the clown that wants to secede from the union. It's impossible, they are following the low taxes makes everything like a wonderful fantasy land ideal. Now if they could get that damn EPA off their backs and get back to completely destroying the enviroment it would be like heaven on earth.

 

[marincounty]

This is simply Republican trickery to achieve by a ballot initiative what they can't gain by regular elections. They tricked uniformed citizens with a slick campaign to vote for what Republicans wanted-more power to set districts. The claim is that this will produce more moderate candidates for office. Even so, I doubt this will help Republicans win anything in California.

 

[MSnowField]

The reason the division isn't done based on registered voters is because it is suppose to be nonpartisan. This is why the independents on the pannel have the most power, individually their votes counts more than the democrats or republican votes.

This is actually a great idea. It will produce more moderate and reasonable districts.

While you need 60% of the democrats on pannel to agree and 60% of the republicans to agree, you need 75% of the independents to agree.

So the republicans cannot just grab power with this.

 

[werepossum]

The reason the division isn't done based on registered voters is because it is suppose to be nonpartisan. This is why the independents on the pannel have the most power, individually their votes counts more than the democrats or republican votes.

This is actually a great idea. It will produce more moderate and reasonable districts.

While you need 60% of the democrats on pannel to agree and 60% of the republicans to agree, you need 75% of the independents to agree.

So the republicans cannot just grab power with this.

LOL Yes, all California's problems are from Republicans grabbing power. Republicans are so powerful now in California that it will take a miracle for Democrats to save the state.

 

[MSnowField]

LOL Yes, all California's problems are from Republicans grabbing power. Republicans are so powerful now in California that it will take a miracle for Democrats to save the state.

Republicans luckily lost most of their power with the budget needing only a 50% vote now. No longer can they hold up the budget with their nonsense.

 

[Craig234]

A computer program can generate the majority of the district lines; Then a panel of humans can tweak the questionable sections.

Geographical boundaries would be the primary limits. The width of a waterway will come into play as a dividing line.
County limits/city/town limits are the next divider.
From there, use major transportation corridors to futher delinate.
From that point, you have fairly compact areas.
Computer tweaks possibly based on racial/ethnic makeup at that point.
Set up flag when the numbers do not match evenly and a corridor has to be crossed to it can be examined by people.

By pulling the initial politicas out of the equation and having only a couple of thousand of population being manipulated outside the geo rules; fairness for all comes into play.

Now, those that lose the benefits of gerrymandering will complain; but the overall fairness of the districts as a common area should be the driving force.

Something to note is that ANY system has some inherent 'unfairness' inherent in a 'winner take all system', in that 52% of the voters get 100% of the power - the 48% whose candidate loses have their candidate get 0% of the say in the votes. That's not 'fair' to them, really, but there's no good answer to it - it's all just picks between one unfair distribution of winner take all elections or another distribution.

You can hope it 'all balances out' that some unfair 100% power on one side gets evened out by unfair 100% power on the 'other' side.

We like to lean towards 'natural geographic lines' simply because they seem less unfair than lines to specifically favor the party in power - but they're still unfair, too.

And when you get to the point that your state removing its partisan edge for the party more popular, while another state keeps its partisan advantage for the opposite party, you get to a whole other issue of 'fairness', as the national balance no longer reflects the voters.

There are a lot of 'simple answers', but none are as 'fair' as they'd claim.

One could argue that just letting the parties in power gerrymander and balance each other out isn't as unfair as it sounds, compared to other 'unfair' solutions.

Texas was the most ridiculous of all, using the 2002 midterms that Republicans did well in to force unprecedented redistricting between censuses for party gerrymandering.

The 'Tom DeLay special' to get more Republicans in Congress - with the Democrats fleeing the state to prevent a quorum while Republicans demanded the Texas Rangers capture them and force their return to the capitol so they could pass their scheme, which they did.

The issue with the CA commission as I mentioned is that it gives more power to the Republicans than they have democratically with voters. Also unfair.

 

[Craig234]

Republicans luckily lost most of their power with the budget needing only a 50% vote now. No longer can they hold up the budget with their nonsense.

Yup, that was great, even if I think voters did not quite understand what they were voting for, unfortunately.

I said this was the most important ballot initiative to pass, and it did. We should start to see the benefits within two years, from the next budget.

I suspect we will have an on-time budget for the first time in a while, and a much better one without terrible concessions for a few radical Republicans.

 

[MSnowField]

Something to note is that ANY system has some inherent 'unfairness' inherent in a 'winner take all system', in that 52% of the voters get 100% of the power - the 48% whose candidate loses have their candidate get 0% of the say in the votes. That's not 'fair' to them, really, but there's no good answer to it - it's all just picks between one unfair distribution of winner take all elections or another distribution.

You can hope it 'all balances out' that some unfair 100% power on one side gets evened out by unfair 100% power on the 'other' side.

We like to lean towards 'natural geographic lines' simply because they seem less unfair than lines to specifically favor the party in power - but they're still unfair, too.

And when you get to the point that your state removing its partisan edge for the party more popular, while another state keeps its partisan advantage for the opposite party, you get to a whole other issue of 'fairness', as the national balance no longer reflects the voters.

There are a lot of 'simple answers', but none are as 'fair' as they'd claim.

One could argue that just letting the parties in power gerrymander and balance each other out isn't as unfair as it sounds, compared to other 'unfair' solutions.

Texas was the most ridiculous of all, using the 2002 midterms that Republicans did well in to force unprecedented redistricting between censuses for party gerrymandering.

The 'Tom DeLay special' to get more Republicans in Congress - with the Democrats fleeing the state to prevent a quorum while Republicans demanded the Texas Rangers capture them and force their return to the capitol so they could pass their scheme, which they did.

The issue with the CA commission as I mentioned is that it gives more power to the Republicans than they have democratically with voters. Also unfair.

One thing to considure is it also gives equal power to DTS/3rd party voters, and these people typically tend to lean left.

 

[CycloWizard]

Something to note is that ANY system has some inherent 'unfairness' inherent in a 'winner take all system', in that 52% of the voters get 100% of the power - the 48% whose candidate loses have their candidate get 0% of the say in the votes. That's not 'fair' to them, really, but there's no good answer to it - it's all just picks between one unfair distribution of winner take all elections or another distribution.

Yes, this pesky problem has long been known. It's called a representative republic. Things would be so much more fair if we just handed you the keys to the White House.

You can hope it 'all balances out' that some unfair 100% power on one side gets evened out by unfair 100% power on the 'other' side.

We like to lean towards 'natural geographic lines' simply because they seem less unfair than lines to specifically favor the party in power - but they're still unfair, too.

And when you get to the point that your state removing its partisan edge for the party more popular, while another state keeps its partisan advantage for the opposite party, you get to a whole other issue of 'fairness', as the national balance no longer reflects the voters.

There are a lot of 'simple answers', but none are as 'fair' as they'd claim.

One could argue that just letting the parties in power gerrymander and balance each other out isn't as unfair as it sounds, compared to other 'unfair' solutions.

Texas was the most ridiculous of all, using the 2002 midterms that Republicans did well in to force unprecedented redistricting between censuses for party gerrymandering.

The 'Tom DeLay special' to get more Republicans in Congress - with the Democrats fleeing the state to prevent a quorum while Republicans demanded the Texas Rangers capture them and force their return to the capitol so they could pass their scheme, which they did.

The issue with the CA commission as I mentioned is that it gives more power to the Republicans than they have democratically with voters. Also unfair.

No, I don't think you could argue that gerrymanding is in any way more fair than using some rational basis for drawing the boundaries. Unless, of course, your argument is that this would cause the incumbents to lose seats and, since you're ideologically whipped by said incumbents, this would be devastating to your psyche.

 

[fskimospy]

Republicans luckily lost most of their power with the budget needing only a 50% vote now. No longer can they hold up the budget with their nonsense.

Not true unfortunately, there is still a requirement for a 2/3rds majority to raise any new taxes or fees. I think Californians will find that (once again) they have voted for something they didn't fully understand, and it will come back to bite them in the ass.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The fact that a budget can be passed with less opposition does not mean that a better budget will occur.

If anything the lack of opposition may make it worse - the checks/balances are being altered to allow more spending with less accountability

 

[dmcowen674]

LOL Yes, all California's problems are from Republicans grabbing power.

Republicans are so powerful now in California that it will take a miracle for Democrats to save the state.

Then why save it? Save it for what?

 

[fskimospy]

The fact that a budget can be passed with less opposition does not mean that a better budget will occur.

If anything the lack of opposition may make it worse - the checks/balances are being altered to allow more spending with less accountability

There are only a handful of states in the union that require a supermajority on par with passing a constitutional amendment in order to make the state operate each year. Frankly, it's proven to be a horrible idea. Changing the votes required to a simple majority doesn't change anything in regards to accountability. What it does do is remove the outsize influence that a minority of legislators had over the state that they enjoy almost nowhere else in the country.

It's a trojan horse in many ways though, the legislature still requires a 2/3rds majority to pass any change in taxation or fees, but now they are mandated to pass a budget on time. All the Republicans will need to do is stall to get what they want. This is yet another reason why the proposition system is stupid, as I sincerely doubt that's what the voters intended.

 

[Craig234]

The fact that a budget can be passed with less opposition does not mean that a better budget will occur.

If anything the lack of opposition may make it worse - the checks/balances are being altered to allow more spending with less accountability

Yes, it does, in this case. It's not about 'accountability', it's about people with a horrible agenda getting power they don't deserve and abusing it to force bad budgets.

 

[Craig234]

Not true unfortunately, there is still a requirement for a 2/3rds majority to raise any new taxes or fees. I think Californians will find that (once again) they have voted for something they didn't fully understand, and it will come back to bite them in the ass.

No, they are separate issues. Nothing about the vote on the budget change to 50% will 'bite them in the ass'. They'd have the 2/3 on taxes and fees either way.

Now, we badly need to repeal the *business* side of Prop 13 property taxes, and fix revenue. But the budget will be a big improvement regardless.

 

[alphatarget1]

I agree with CycloWizard that the districts should be contiguous, as we generally understand contiguity. But the solution isn't necessarily requiring that they be rectangular, but that they have some maximum ratio of perimeter to area, and a maximum cross section (no long skinny giraffe necks).

You can write GIS scripts that automatically create compact contiguous polygons containing equal numbers of citizens.

Good idea.

 

[alphatarget1]

this would be devastating to your psyche.

lol qft.

 

[fskimospy]

No, they are separate issues. Nothing about the vote on the budget change to 50% will 'bite them in the ass'. They'd have the 2/3 on taxes and fees either way.

Now, we badly need to repeal the *business* side of Prop 13 property taxes, and fix revenue. But the budget will be a big improvement regardless.

I know they are separate issues, but they exist together. Part of the new budget proposition was the inclusion of a deadline, and now they are going to run into it without the ability to raise any taxes or fees. Mark my words, it's going to be a mess.

Prop 13 should be repealed in its entirety. Actually all California propositions should be repealed and the proposition system abolished. It's been an unmitigated catastrophe for the state.

 

[alphatarget1]

No, they are separate issues. Nothing about the vote on the budget change to 50% will 'bite them in the ass'. They'd have the 2/3 on taxes and fees either way.

Now, we badly need to repeal the *business* side of Prop 13 property taxes, and fix revenue. But the budget will be a big improvement regardless.

aka forcing more businesses to leave California. Great idea!

Cut all non-essential social services. Believe it or not, this evil place called Texas also have social services like foodstamps. Start taxing poor people for the services they use.

 

[Craig234]

I know they are separate issues, but they exist together. Part of the new budget proposition was the inclusion of a deadline, and now they are going to run into it without the ability to raise any taxes or fees. Mark my words, it's going to be a mess.

And it'd be better with the 2/3 requirement? They already have a deadline - this just adds new penalties, and they should hit the deadline with a 50% vote.

Prop 13 should be repealed in its entirety. Actually all California propositions should be repealed and the proposition system abolished. It's been an unmitigated catastrophe for the state.

It's been a mixed bag. It was introduced as a progressive (power to the people) measure to give them a way to pass things outside a corrupt legislature.

Unfortunately, it's often used for wealthy interests to push their agenda and get around the elected, non-corrupt legislature.

 

[shortylickens]

I dont doubt California has the worst problems, as corrupt as they are.
Virginia is bad too cuz so many politicians live here and getting into office in Virginia or Maryland is a fast track to D.C.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/findyourreps.xpd?state=VA

Zoom in and take a real good look at how fucked up it is, especially as you get closer to Washington.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The fact that a budget can be passed with less opposition does not mean that a better budget will occur.

If anything the lack of opposition may make it worse - the checks/balances are being altered to allow more spending with less accountability

Yes, it does, in this case. It's not about 'accountability', it's about people with a horrible agenda getting power they don't deserve and abusing it to force bad budgets.

Who makes the determination that it is a horrible agenda.

Why do they not deserve; is it because an elite's viewpoint is better than the common person?