Is that Carly and Meg to the right of Duke?
Posted on 10/30/2008 12:31:07 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
LOL! Me too!
I’m voting no because I do not want the legislature to hand off their constitutional responsibility to a committee. We have too much of that at all levels of government.
But as for the redistricting itself, I’d rather a computer generate random lines every 4 years on a map.
I can agree with that on both counts. I’m going to have to sit down in a day or so and read the small print on all these initiatives. If I were reading the Prop 11 data, your count one would have been a red flag to me as well.
That is in the eye of the beholder.
It is good if you mean that the process is at slightly greater arms length from its intended recipient. The term better might be more appropriate if, in your midset, Barry Obama is better than Hugo Chavez.
It is bad if you mean it subdivides the electorate in similarly sized groups without respect to community, culture or race. It is bad if you understand that it's passage will be used as a excuse to preclude effort to promulgate anything less republican. The effacing term "best we can expect" might be more appropriate if you are a pragmatic partisan.
Voting “No” as well.
Already voted NO on Prop. 11. For me, it was a close call; however, after seeing this Austrian and Rambo endorsement, I feel much better about my choice. And I like Rambo...
I’m not a Rambo fan but I loved Rocky — the first one, anyway (after that, they got tiresome).
Is that Carly and Meg to the right of Duke?
I don’t think so ,, where’s rosario?
So ya voted yet?
We got blank ballots but not for long..
I’m leaning 4 Yes’s down from 5 almost 6
ROFL!
So ya voted yet?
Nope. I like the tradition of voting on Tuesday. I'll wait until then.
I’m leaning 4 Yes’s down from 5 almost 6
I'm still at three yeses--4, 8, and 12. What's your current list look like?
4 8 12 and either 6 or 9 maybe.. or not. :-)
Here's two obvious reforms California should make their election structures, which unfortunately will never be even considered for the foreseeable future:
1) State Judges should be ELECTED completely by the voters, with the governor and the legislature having almost no say in the matter. Currently, only 7 states choose their judges by "partisan, contested elections" and the system works great from what I've seen. Illinois is one of them. Right now, the Illinois Supreme Court is the most conservative branch of government -- the Dems hold a narrow 1 seat majority (4 Dems, 3 GOP) but the three Republicans are all good, reliable, staunch conservatives. (If they ever went wobbly and started acting like RINOs, they'd lose the primary next time around). The four Dems are pro-buisness moderates and the lone non-Chicago Dem votes with the Republicans half the time (he needs to do that since he was elected from a majority Republican district) The Governor does have the power to appoint a TEMPORARILY replacement in the event of a sudden death or resignation, but this judge has to stand for election as soon as the next general election rolls around. I shudder to think what kind of corrupt socialist judges George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich would have appointed!
2) The State Senate should be drawn the same way the U.S. Senate is drawn -- to give each AREA of California EQUAL influence in government. Each California county would have a single state senator. Los Angeles County (having the largest population of any county in the U.S.) gets ONE State Senator, and rural Siskiyou gets ONE Senator as well. This would likely result in a GOP majority in the State Senate for the foreseeable future and drive the Dems nuts because their voting base is all in liberal coastal cities. The lower house would continue to be represented on the basis on population, so they can't say it's unfamilar. They'd be a balence between the two houses ... one representing voters on the basis of population and the other representing voters on the basis of region.
When I first looked at that photo I wondered why Grey Davis was standing there. (left side)
LOL!!!
4, 8, 9 and 12 here
Thanks!
You two made me take another look at prop 9 — but I’m stickin’ with my original choices of 4/8/12.
(I must like numbers divisible by 4, or sumthin’, LOL)
FWIW, I don't think most races are lost because a district is "non-competitive" as they claim. Even if it were, the law doesn't allow for any action to make it competitive. Instead, it puts language in the Constitution recognizing the Voting Rights Act and requiring that "communities of interest" be recognized when drawing districts.
Had the GOP actually tried to win some races, and lost because of district gerrymandering, I might change my mind. But most races have been funded with peanuts, favoring the high-profile races like Arnie-for-guv and McCain-for-Prez and leaving all the others to fend on their own. Heck... there are a bunch of districts where there aren't any Republicans even running, leaving the Dems unopposed. The Party needs to get better at recruiting and mentoring talent across the state and quit putting all the focus on these issues. If they put half the energy into local elections as they have into failed ballot measures, we'd have won more seats, IMO.
Since they couldn't pass their crazy proposal last time (that was opposed by about 3/4 of Republican congress-critters, they simply limited this initiative to State offices. So... if passed, we will literally have two separate redistricting efforts performed after the 2010 census, by two separate redistricting bodies. Doncha love the efficiency of government?
Just a friendly gathering of the ruling class of California. Welcome to "post partisanship."
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.