CA redistricting system

[Greenman]

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.

I think we're going to end up with even higher taxes and a lot more people feeding at the public trough. I've known for some time that I was going to have to move out of state, my guess is that Jerry Brown and the new budget rules are going to move that date forward by ten years.
I like California, but I can't afford to pay for any more foolishness. Over the next few years a lot of city's are going to see their entire budgets eaten up paying retirees, I don't think I want to witness the end result of that.

 

[Craig234]

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?

As a rule, I'm done wasting time on irrational propaganda posts with buzzwords like the right-wing version of 'elite'. If you can talk instead of parrot, you can try again.

 

[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?

As a rule, I'm done wasting time on irrational propaganda posts with buzzwords like the right-wing version of 'elite'. If you can talk instead of parrot, you can try again.

Lets try this again in small bites

• What makes the determination that it is a horrible agenda?
  
• Why do certain groups not deserve power?
  
• How is abuse determined? One person's trash may be another ones gold - it is subjective.
  
• Is a bad budget one that does not conform to ones viewpoint?

 

[Fenixgoon]

The big flaw in the system is that it gives 50-50 seats to Republicans and Democrats, regardless of the voters - who might be, say, 2/3 Democrats.

So, this makes the Republicans have a lot more say than they have under Democracy by the voters (and vice versa in Republican states).

No system is perfect; fix that, and you get a commission where 51% of the seats might mean one party gets 100% of the say.

Under the traditional system, the elected party can tend to get pretty extreme in gerrymandering - especially with computers now helping.

I'd like to see a solution that is both Democratic, but fair to the minority too.

It is also an issue that when a state of one party gives up the 'partisan edge' of gerrymandering, and another (coughtexascough) doesn't, it gives an edge to the opposing party in the national balance of seats, overrepresenting the party that continued to gerrymander. That hurts the state that does this, but it can't be forced nationally.

1) i noticed you capitalized the "D" in democratic. any particular reason? as democratic, the adjective, bears no special significance and is not a proper noun by itself.

2) while no system will be perfect, having the people draw the district lines is better than gerrymandering (and by that i mean having politicians, the ones who benefit from redistricting by keeping their seats, draw the lines. that's a terrible idea)

 

[Craig234]

1) i noticed you capitalized the "D" in democratic. any particular reason? as democratic, the adjective, bears no special significance and is not a proper noun by itself.

No, just an error switching between Democratic and democratic.

2) while no system will be perfect, having the people draw the district lines is better than gerrymandering (and by that i mean having politicians, the ones who benefit from redistricting by keeping their seats, draw the lines. that's a terrible idea)

The thing you leave out that is the issue, is the makeup of the citizens' parties.

Having a group of people who are out of balance with the electorate set up the districts can be as bad or worse than when the politicians do it.

I think I laid out the problem clearly that the commission matching the electorate is a problem as well, if a 55-45 split means 55% wins every vote - there's no great solution.

The nature of winner take all districts, to repeat myself, guarantees some 'unfairness' as arbitrary majorities get 100% of the 'win' over others.

What would be fairer in terms of representation might actually be statewide voting so that if 40% of voters are a party, they get 40% of the seats, going to the members of their party who get the most votes, but even that has problems, as you lose the 'local representation' tying a politician to where he lives provides.

The fact that only some states doing this means the other party that doesn't in other states gets a national advantage makes me less worried about the problem, it balances out.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Leting computer programs create districts based on non-political boundaries will clear up 90% of the issues.

Then the politicians can fight over the remaining 10%.

Districts are no longer based on representation but on community - based to the original basics

 

[Craig234]

Leting computer programs create districts based on non-political boundaries will clear up 90% of the issues.

Then the politicians can fight over the remaining 10%.

Districts are no longer based on representation but on community - based to the original basics

That might be some improvement, but computers follow rules, and any rules are still going to have the problems I mentioned, as well as only some states doing it.

 

[EagleKeeper]

It is up to each state to handle the redistricting for its citizens.

In a previous post I laid out guidelines/rules that are apolitical - which is what one should have for redistricting.

Or do you feel that the districts should be built on political decisions vs representation of a community.