[calcowgirl]

There is a mixed bag of supporters. On the Pro-side, they have some support from the ACLU, Common Cause, and other lefty groups. But then again, they have Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc, also. Arnie and Lockyer are on the pro-side—but so is McClintock.

Likewise, on the NO-on-11 side, you have a bunch of Democratic clubs opposing it and a host of non-partisan folks. The CA GOP has “no position” on the measure.

This thread had some good comments, and prior threads keyworded as “Prop 11”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2114497/posts?page=22#22

[DoughtyOne]

I generally tend to vote down initiatives where there are no clear lines being drawn, pardon the pun. If this is a mixed bag, and the support seems to indicate that, then I’m going to have to take a pass. Your initial comments made sense, and seeing this doesn’t convince me to alter my thoughts.

[BillyBoy]

At least it's better than Arnie trying to put redistricting into the hands of "nonpartisan" (LMAO!) retired judges, but the jury is out on Prop 11 until I know more about how this "independant comission" would be selected. I still don't see why these politicians can't grow a brain and go with the obvious solution: electoral districts drawn by computer with the simple criteria of being as compact and equal in population as possible. Makes too much sense, I suppose.

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.