California Re-districting experiment

.Shane.

.Shane.

Take it like a voter
Retired Moderator
Joined
May 9, 2005
Messages
9,233
Location
NorCal
Maybe "experiment" isn't the best word? Its a new law, passed by Proposition in 2008 (this year, we passed a similar Prop to have national Congressional lines drawn up by this same citizen committee), where state legislative districts will be drawn up by a citizen group. I may not be 100% right on the specifics, but the citizen group is composed of 5 Dems, 5 Repubs, and 5 Independents. To be part of it you had to submit an application to the Secretary of State office. There were 1000s of applicants. I was going to apply, until I realized that.

Here's some quotes from the article:

Until now, the boundaries of legislative and congressional districts were drawn every 10 years by state legislators in a process that critics said was often skewed for partisan advantage or to protect incumbents. Many officeholders have been able to skate from election to election without much in the way of serious competition.

But through a series of ballot measures, California voters have set the state on a radically different course with an unknown outcome. In 2008, voters gave the job of drawing legislative district lines to a new Citizens Redistricting Commission. This month, voters gave the commission additional powers, handing them authority over congressional districts. And Thursday, the first members of that new commission were picked by lottery.
....

Backers of the proposals have argued that the combination of the open primary and nonpartisan redistricting will be more competitive elections, a dilution of the power of party bosses, and candidates who are more responsive to voters than the entrenched special interests that bankroll political campaigns.
Click to expand...

Now, this is combined w/ two other recent developments that should make governing in CA a lot more interesting and, hopefully, productive. The other two create open primaries (only the top 2 candidates from the primary are put on a ballot) and a removal the 2/3 requirement to pass a state budget.

I'm completely fascinated by this and am hopeful it will help us right the ship in CA.

RULES:
*No CA bashing. You hate CA, great, I get it, congratulations, go start your own thread.
*Stick to the topic. If you hate that CA has such and such environmental regulation, again, congrats, go start your own thread
 
I think all redistricting should ban gerrymandering. Make all districts as contiguous with political bounties as possible, and with the smallest borders possible, consistent with the determined population size.
 
I admit to complete ignorance on the efficacy of this proposal. I suspect we shall only see its effectiveness over time.

Has this been tried anywhere else? Is there a foreign country that does this? I think we have to find another example of it somewhere to have an idea on how it works.
 
I would love it if we did this in Minnesota, but only with the intent of eliminating most legislative seats in the state.

California has 120 state legislators and 34 million people.
Texas -- 188 state legislators and 20 million people.
New York -- 211 state legislators and 19 million people.
Florida -- 160 legislators and 16 million people.
Illinois -- 177 legislators and 12.5 million people.

And Minnesota has 201 state legislators and 5 million people. For only 5 million people, we have more full-time state legislators than 4 of the 5 most populous states in the U.S.
 
I have no problem with gerrymandering provided it's done by Democrats. That said California's solution is stupid and won't work.
 
What on earth would be served by eliminating legislative seats? The point of legislative seats is to represent constituencies, and you get closer representations to the public when you have more seats, as more communities have individual representation. Cost is rather irrelevant when it comes to something as fundamental as government representation.
 
Bill3000 said:
What on earth would be served by eliminating legislative seats? The point of legislative seats is to represent constituencies, and you get closer representations to the public when you have more seats, as more communities have individual representation. Cost is rather irrelevant when it comes to something as fundamental as government representation.
Click to expand...
I should think then that maybe we should abolish the paid professional legislature and move to a New Hampshire model. There's no reason in this day and age we can't hold all meetings, etc. over a video conference. It would certainly help trim the fat off the state budget and perhaps make it less lucrative for corrupt business and public labor unions to bully them into voting for their interests over the interests of the state (not that state, the state as in U.S. state.)
 
amadeus said:
I should think then that maybe we should abolish the paid professional legislature and move to a New Hampshire model. There's no reason in this day and age we can't hold all meetings, etc. over a video conference. It would certainly help trim the fat off the state budget and perhaps make it less lucrative for corrupt business and public labor unions to bully them into voting for their interests over the interests of the state (not that state, the state as in U.S. state.)
Click to expand...

I don't really see how that would somehow magically make the very rational strategy of rent-seeking disappear. The only thing that would do would be making wealth a qualification for running for office. Nothing fundamental would change. And besides, candidates still need money - and an increasingly enormous amount of money - in order to be elected. You would have to simply outright ban lobbying, or move to a public financing system, and I presume you don't want either. And besides, that's irrelevant to reducing the number of representatives in a legislature.
 
If you have a valid point to make as to why think this won't work, I'd like to hear it. If its just hyperbole, no need to reply.
Click to expand...


So just to get it straight, we're talking a group of 15 people based on their "official" political affiliation, of randomly chosen regular citizens with no experience, or qualifications in the matter at hand.

Do I really need to spell out why it's going to be a disaster? You're basically allowing 15 random people to redraw boundaries based on their stated political affiliation, hell the whole lot of them could be Republicans, or all of them could be devout believers of the socialist party, how does their political affiliation qualify them to do anything?

Who are these people accountable to? At least you can vote out your politicians if they gerrymander the hell out of something in a way you don't like, what about these people? Whose going to punish them?

You've just appointed 15 little dictators and you think it's a good idea. Well have fun with that.

citizen group is composed of 5 Dems, 5 Repubs, and 5 Independents. To be part of it you had to submit an application to the Secretary of State office.
Click to expand...

And Thursday, the first members of that new commission were picked by lottery.
Click to expand...
 
Not sure if this is Am's point, but 1 rep per every 25k people is an expensive proposition, assuming you pay people enough to do the job. Or, is Minn one of those states that sees it as a part/time, almost volunteer, pursuit and doesn't really pay them enough so that it would be their main job?
 
Okay, given that I work on redistricting issues from time to time

This is a pretty awesome experiment. I hope it works.

It is impossible to prevent gerrymandering. Because of 1 person 1 vote, there are always decisions as to where to place Community X,Y, and Z so the numbers balance. Given politicians are in charge, such districting has led to weird alliances (in GA, for instance, Black Dems and White Republicans joined forces to approve a districting plan that screwed White Dems)

Also Kara, there are requirements that were in the application. It was not all random. I'm very familiar with the new Cali law and I'm very hopeful it works.
 
Also Kara, there are requirements that were in the application. It was not all random. I'm very familiar with the new Cali law and I'm very hopeful it works.
Click to expand...

How are they accountable for their actions, if at all?
 
Kara, you have some good points, ones that I see myself. However, given the horrible way its done now, I think this is still a step forward. We shall see.

JH, have you (or your peers) had to do a lot of research on this law in CA? What is the viewpoint of the "political class", so to speak?
 
California's districts are about to get very strange! Just take a look at New York's too see what they'll probably be like. When those lines were last drawn, one level of the legislature was held by democrats and the other was held by republicans (still is, to the best of my knowledge). You would think this would lead to sensible district lines.

You would be wrong. Instead of creating competitive seats, the legislature went to the other extreme and every district is a safe seat for either a democrat or a republican. The only difference is that half the districts are for democrats and the other half are for republicans, rather than all being for one or the other.
 
It's like Adam Smith said, they prefer the comforts of collusion over the rigors of competition.
 
I am so totally looking forward to this. Maybe this way I finally won't be sharing my district with folks from Tracy and Lodi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Zohran Mamdani
5 6 7
Replies
133
Views
5K
danjuno
danjuno
Zardnaar
Progressives How Many?
2 3 4
Replies
61
Views
4K
JollyRoger
JollyRoger
Zardnaar
Ethics of Power
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Klaus Hergersheimer
Klaus Hergersheimer
Lexicus
America After MAGA
7 8 9
Replies
168
Views
9K
Sommerswerd
Sommerswerd
Hygro
Alternatives to hard money question mark
Replies
18
Views
497
Lexicus
Lexicus
Back
Top Bottom