Posted on 12/02/2006 8:50:41 AM PST by FairOpinion
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he will renew his push for redrawing political boundaries in 2007.
“We are going to make every effort to change the way California draws its congressional and legislative districts to guarantee that our elected leaders are more responsive and more accountable to the people they serve,” Mr. Schwarzenegger says in remarks prepared for his weekly radio address.
In the past three election periods, only four out of the 459 congressional and legislative seats up for grabs in California ever changed party hands, he says.
“That's evidence of a system that needs to change,” the governor says.
Redistricting can be done by moving the power to shape districts into the hands of a neutral body, Mr. Schwarzenegger says.
(Excerpt) Read more at centralvalleybusinesstimes.com ...
It would be wise, if, instead of infighting and attacking Arnold, they would help Arnold, who is trying to help them despite themselves.
The CA GOP should focus on becoming competitive in CA and obtaining more seats -- the redistricting would be a great help in this.
Arnold put a redistricting proposition on the special election ballot in 2005, which was defeated, because, as it is becoming typical in CA: the Dems turn out in droves and Republicans/conservatives stay home.
That's another aspect the GOP needs to change.
Republicans should unite and help Arnold push through redistricting.
A more neutral plan would increase the number of "moderate" Democrats, and reduce the number of Republicans and more extreme Dems in the legislature. There is not that much competitive real estate in California. Plus, the edicts about minority districts limit flexibility.
The DemonRats will never go for it. They are guaranteed safe-seat majorities for the foreseeable future.
I have a relatively easy way to solve the issue of redistricting... Require that the north and south boundaries be horizontal lines based on geography. The East and West boundaries will be vertical lines...in other words, rectangles.
Slice the state up in rectangles where only the edges of the state are non-straight-lines.
Then, run a computer program to define the position of the lines so that they are ~equally distributed.
Some people would complain that such a division would divide cities, etc...you could program to minimize this effect, but let the chips fall where they may.
Exactly!!! Use computer technology to draw district lines so they are both geographically compact, and have equal population. That way some districts will lean to one party or another, but many more will be mixed politically. Then the candidates would actually have to compete for our votes in such districts. Political competition - what a concept!
I had the same idea! I think it could be done, but it's just too wise an idea and so would never get passed. These spider-shaped districts are ridiculous and I feel 100% unrepresented.
they'd have to follow Census Block lines (which are not necessarily rectangles) but yes I like the idea of an algorithmically-generated map.
They presently follow property lines, otherwise you would have a line crossing through a house. Where would that person vote? Would they not be able to vote in the district that taxes their property?
If the republicans held an advantage like this, you can bet some judge would rule it unconstitutional.
During the 1980s, when Democrats had a total lock on Congress and the Cold War was still raging, there was a joke running around Republican circles.
The joke was poignant because in America, the land of the free, we proudly proclaimed our heritage of free and open elections, and decried the Soviet Communists' lack of the same.
So the joke ran: "Which country's government has the greatest percent turnover in legislators, the US or the USSR?" Answer: the USSR. About 90% of legislators were maintained each cycle, indicating a 10% turnover. In the gerrymandered Democratic House of Representative, turnover every two years was about 2%, meaning that 98% kept coming back.
The irony here is that if a legislative body cannot and does not get in new blood, are the elections really free and open?
So Schwarzenegger is right. 1% turnover over three election cycles is not evidence of free and open elections. There might as well be only once choice on each ballot. Undergo major-league redistricting and let the games begin.
I read somewhere that the next "redistricting reform" plan would include a modification of term limits as well. Anyone else heard about this?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the minority district requirements only affect certain states -- specifically Southern states.
A different way to look at it would be to try to create districts that are competitive, so that each district is up for grabs every cycle. You're probably always going to have some safe districts, in San Francisco and Orange County, but it would be possible to make a lot of districts that are demographically mixed and in play. The benefit of this is when you have a wave, like in '94, you could take a huge chunk of seats and then use incumbency to protect them. In a year like this one, the GOP might have been massacred. Instead, California was the one bright spot for the GOP because redistricting so favorably for Dems means that Republican seats are fewer, but very safe.
This sounds reasonable to me.
It is tough, because LA County and the Bay area have very few GOP precincts, and in much of elsewhere, to make competitive districts you would need to bleach out Hispanic districts (in the Central Valley, orange county, the inland empire, San Deigo County, etc). You probably could fashion a competitive district or two in the Sacramento area and far out Bay area exurbs (Pombo's district that he lost has become competitive), and maybe a couple in the inland empire and San Diego County, and a couple around Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties, but that is about it really.
I personally don't care if redistricting results in more or less Democrats. That's not the issue. The issue is, does the legislature feel responsive to the people or not? Because right now, it doesn't.
Sounds reasonable, but it might end up perilous. From the incumbents standpoint, in both parties, I couldn't imagine many of them not opposing this notion. For the GOP, especially with Ah-nold at the helm, we would suffer even further losses and start to resemble NY (where we will have a horrid and unrepresentative 6 out of 29 members come January), a great big commie Red (not MediaBlue) 'Rat hellhole. Especially in L.A. County, where a great number of the worst of the rodent termites infest the body politic, most of the sitting Reps wouldn't want one iota of their districts changed (i.e. Waxman, Berman, Waters, et al, would be terrified at the prospect of Hispanics gaining more ground in their seats - Waters Watts bailiwick is already Hispanic), and you'd end up with a bunch of Xavier Becerra and Sanchez family clo(w)n(e)s.
Frankly, there ought to be a movement in this country to finally rid ourselves of these racist requirements for drawing districts, they're nothing but a free ticket to Congress for the 'Rats (the lone exception being for our Cuban friends in FL). As a Caucasian in my state legislative Senate district, I am a minority in one of these race-gerrymandered seats (in this case, Black). My State Senator has neither the inclination nor any need to pay attention to my concerns as a White minority, and thanks to the Justice Department, that racism's A-OK. That's how we're gonna lose this country, folks.
Simply put, the only acceptable gerrymandering that should be allowed is one that maximizes a party's performance, regardless of the racial makeup, but one that tries to keep as contiguous a shape as possible (none of these Rorschach inkblot test nightmares, which are always racist districts).
Initially Arnold put Prop. 77 on the ballot to have non-political redistricting. After it's defeat, the idea was DOA. Arnold is trying to resurrect it and is negotiating with the Dems, and the term limit changes are part of the negotiation.
Getting non-political redistricting may be more important than term limits, because in the current districts, one Dem could get term limited out, just so another can take its place with not much change.
Actually only 34% of registered voters are Republican in CA.
CALIFORNIA VOTER AND PARTY PROFILES
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/JTF_VoterProfilesJTF.pdf
"The Democratic Party currently has an advantage of 1.4 million voters over the Republican Party (7.1 million to 5.7 million) or 9 percentage points (43% to 34%), according to the Secretary of State.
Among those most likely to vote in this year’s elections, Democrats outnumber Republicans by a 7-point margin (44% to 37%), while 15 percent of likely voters are registered as independents.
... the fact that independents are more likely to lean toward Democrats than Republicans (42% to 28%) tends to work to the disadvantage of the GOP in statewide elections."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.