California Prop 11- redistricting. what do you guys think?

[rch35]

help me out here, im torn, i need to hear some alternate positions.

im leaning towards it, but i am not to clear on the details.

who appoints the council that redistricts the state?

what do you guys think?

[dsc]

1. It would help cost us Congress if it mandates non partisan redistricting

very bad idea unless it became national.

[anigbrowl]

10. We shouldn't depend on redistricting tricks any more than the GOP does.

I don't see any evidence presented to back up your argument. Allowing legislators to do their own redistricting is bad for democracy, whether in Texas or California or anywhere else.

[EFerrari]

2. No on Arnold's "turn CA red" measure. n/t

[dubeskin]

3. I say no

While I haven't actually looked into it, here's my take on it - almost any redistricting is bad. The way I see it, is that, for the most part, the liberal areas of California are very close together, and redistricting would most likely take place in the more rural/conservative areas.

Note, though, I haven't actually really investigated, but that's what I assume would happen, is the Republicans get a little help.

[Newsjock]

4. Another bad solution to a real problem

Our districts need to be fixed, but not this way.

[MzNov]

5. Absolutey NO on Prop. 11

It's the Republican scam for taking over redistricting. The Progressive Voting guide has good info!

http://courage.3cdn.net/73b3356e5b24d2525d_3wm6b3pv0.pdf

(2 page pdf doc)

[dana_b]

28. exactly. Please vote no!! n/t

[anigbrowl]

32. Highly inaccurate info, which you can check with a calculator.

"A deeply flawed effort to change how legislative
districts are drawn. Though we desperately need
redistricting reform, this is not it. Actually favors
Republicans (who have 32% of registered voters)
over Democrats (with 43%) and Independents
(with 19.5%). Undermines voting rights for
Californians of color."

Democrats and Republicans would each end up with 35.7& representation, while independent voters would get 28.5%. Instant math fail. The thing about 'undermining voting rights for people of color' is just bullshit, with no basis in fact whatsoever. I'll take a nonpartisan random-=selection method over the current gerrymandering any day.

[MzNov]

40. You are highly uninformed about this issue.

Legislative redistricting is usually bipartisan, according to census numbers. This Republican offering is a trick. Who in his right mind wants "random selection" for drawing population districts?

NO on Prop 11.

[ContinentalOp]

44. Gee, you don't want a random selection of crazy activists...

who have been trained to infiltrate the process... oops I mean a "bipartisan" group of "average voters." :eyes:

[anigbrowl]

49. More fantasyland nonsense.

This is starting to sounds like something on FR - lots of paranoia, little or no factual information. Interesting that the two of us who are supporting it seem to be the only ones offering first-hand sources and who are familiar with the actual proposal. It saddens me to think how many of those voter election guides seem to go unread, even by people who are supposedly informed here on DU.

[ContinentalOp]

56. And in return you offer no real argument. Only name calling.

Here are some simple questions you might be able to answer for me since I'm too dumb to read the whole text.

1. What is going to encourage "average voters" to be involved in this process?

2. How does the process prevent the involvement of political activists who have never run for office or donated more than $2k? Until this year, Karl Rove would have qualified (if he lived in CA).

3. What kind of oversight is there for the 3 board members who screen the applicants?

[anigbrowl]

62. That's what you deserve, because (as you say) you're too lazy to read it.

1. a sense of civic duty (which is why I'm interested in it), plus it pays a $300 per day stipend for the time involved.

2. From the text itself:

(A) Within the 10 years immediately preceding the date of application,
neither the applicant, nor a member of his or her immediate family, may have
done any of the following:

(i) Been appointed to, elected to, or have been a candidate for federal or
state office.

(ii) Served as an officer, employee, or paid consultant of a political party or
of the campaign committee of a candidate for elective federal or state office.

(iii) Served as an elected or appointed member of a political party central
committee.

(iv) Been a registered federal, state, or local lobbyist.

(v) Served as paid congressional, legislative, or Board of Equalization
staff.

(vi) Contributed two thousand dollars ($2,000) or more to any congressional,
state, or local candidate for elective public office in any year, which shall be
adjusted every 10 years by the cumulative change in the California Consumer
Price Index, or its successor.

(B) Staff and consultants to, persons under a contract with, and any person
with an immediate family relationship with the Governor, a Member of the
Legislature, a member of Congress, or a member of the State Board of
Equalization, are not eligible to serve as commission members. As used in this
subdivision, a member of a person’s “immediate family” is one with whom the
person has a bona fide relationship established through blood or legal relation,
including parents, children, siblings, and in-laws.

Karl Rove would (obviously) be ineligible since he's been a paid political consultant within the last decade.

3. The three auditors are appointed by the state auditor as follows. I broke it into paragraphs for easy reading.:

The State Auditor shall establish an Applicant Review Panel, consisting
of three qualified independent auditors, to screen applicants. The State Auditor
shall randomly draw the names of three qualified independent auditors from a
pool consisting of all auditors employed by the state and licensed by the
California Board of Accountancy at the time of the drawing.

The State Auditor
shall draw until the names of three auditors have been drawn including one
who is registered with the largest political party in California based on party
registration, one who is registered with the second largest political party in
California based on party registration, and one who is not registered with
either of the two largest political parties in California.

After the drawing, the
State Auditor shall notify the three qualified independent auditors whose
names have been drawn that they have been selected to serve on the panel. If
any of the three qualified independent auditors decline to serve on the panel,
the State Auditor shall resume the random drawing until three qualified
independent auditors who meet the requirements of this subdivision have
agreed to serve on the panel. A member of the panel shall be subject to the
conflict of interest provisions set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).

The 'Paragraph 2' just above refers to the answers in question 2 - in other words, the auditors appointed may not have been staff members of any election campaign, political party, lobbyists, etc. etc. within the last 10 years either.

The complete text is here: http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/text-proposed-laws/text-of-proposed-laws.pdf#prop11 and it's really not that long.

[ContinentalOp]

65. Thanks

2. I was obviously wrong about Rove. I thought it only prohibited people involved in CA congressional campaigns. Still I don't see any way to ensure that the board members are unbiased. There are plenty of political activists who have never been a paid employee of a campaign, run for office, or donated more than $2000 and I predict that hundreds if not thousands of them will want to be involved. I think that's a valid prediction, not a paranoid conspiracy theory.

3. This explains how the auditors are selected but does not account for any oversight. For example, how could you possibly ensure that the "independent" isn't really a Republican who, during the screening process attempts to select more conservative independents for the pool of 60 applicants?

[anigbrowl]

70. All these possibilities are equally true of Democrats

and as you'll see if you read the rest (it's only 3.5 pages) there's provision for party and assembly representatives to strike up to 8 people from the final pool if they feel someone partisan has made it through the selection process prior to the random drawing. It's a lot of terms and conditions, but they're there to serve as checks and balances.

If you've ever read the federal constitutional rules on what to do in the event of an electoral tie, they also seem convoluted at first. Any well-balanced set of rules looks complex on initial reading.

[anigbrowl]

46. I think not

It seems I'm better informed than you, because the whole idea of the thing is to establish a nonpartisan redistricting commission free of political players (which is why candidates for office and lobbyists are excluded).

[ContinentalOp]

48. Yes because candidates for office and lobbyists are clearly the only "political players"

:eyes: I'm sure there aren't thousands of college Republicans and local party activists eager to get involved in the process.

[anigbrowl]

51. Right, and the Democrats are innocent victims, oh noes.

The more you post, the more I'm sure you haven't read the text of the thing.

[ContinentalOp]

57. Hahaha, your reading comprehension is obviously not that good then.

Since I've already clearly stated that I haven't read it! I haven't read Prop. 8 either but I know that I oppose it. You haven't been able to summarize it in a way that convinces me to support it either.

And by the way, I guarantee that the vast majority of those "average voters" that you want to control redistricting haven't read it either.

[MzNov]

54. I think not

[Sequoia]

6. If Arnie's for it, I'm against it.

He tried this once before and the voters said NO. I will vote No again.

[Cleita]

7. Me too.

His approval was the coupe d' etat for me.

[anigbrowl]

12. This is not the Scwarzenegger plan

which incidentally, I thought was reasonable enough. In any case, the proposed system would allow any qualified California voter to nominate themselves to the selection pool. 'qualified' in this case means not having run for election int he last 10 years, or having held a federal or state appointment or registered lobbying position in the previous 5 years - and selected panelists would not be allowed to accept such a post for 5 years afterwards, or run for office in California for a decade after their service.

I think it's one of the best-written ballot initiatives I've seen in a long time actually.

[Sequoia]

80. Okay.

[ColbertWatcher]

8. My stance on propositions are always NO.

Except when it's a much needed change like Prop2.

The legislation is there to vote on the laws, redistricting shouldn't happen without the census count in 2010.

[anigbrowl]

16. Obviously you haven't actually read the thing

It explicitly only allows redistricting in the year following a census (2010 being the next one). It is a constitutional amendment, not just a legislative one. Personally, I like the idea that Californi votes get a say on the law, although it's depressing how few of them make their decisions based on reading the actual proposals. Maybe I should run for state assembly.

[ColbertWatcher]

20. I just don't like changing the Constitution this way.

And, no, I haven't read it.

I see nothing wrong with the redistricting the way it is.

Why change it?

[anigbrowl]

22. I do think changing the constitution ought to reuqire a supermajority (2/3 of votes)

but I am quite OK with changing it around as the times change.

Redistricting sucks right now because the legislature works hard to ensure that congressional and state incumbents keep their seats by drawing boundaries to maximize their own party's results, which leads to a lot of idiotic-shaped districts which have little to do with actual neighborhoods and communities. I am not in favor of elected officials being able to mess with the electoral district map, because they'ree always going to put their own electoral security first, regardless of which party they belong to.

As Cindy Sheehan is about to learn (without any help from me), unseating an incumbent is next to impossible unless they're rocked by a scandal. I feel congressional districts should be drawn.

Here's a map of CA in general: http://www.calvoter.org/voter/maps/statewide/congress.pdf

You can see how around SF and LA there are a lot of weirdly shaped districts. Next, here's my neighborhood: http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/sen/cngplan/PDF_CD_ATLAS/CD08_NEW_SF.PDF

I live in district 12, so my Congresswoman is Jackie Speier. See the big '12' in the lower left? I live a few blocks west of the '12'. A few years ago, I lived in District 8, which is Nancy Pelosi's. I am living on the SAME STREET, I just moved to a house 6 blocks south. My neighborhood is split in half, for no especially good reason. A block from my old house, which congressional district you're in depends on which side of Kirkham avenue your house is on. I see no reason for districts 8 and 12 to wrapped around each other like a yin-yang symbol.

[ColbertWatcher]

34. The districts should be redrawn, but it has to be done carefully and ...

... without this "hurry before the census begins!" shit.

I don't like the way the districts are drawn (I'm in CA's 27th! THE FIGHTIN' 27TH!), but this Constitutional amendment was pushed by the GOP, so I don't trust it.

[anigbrowl]

43. This does propose a careful method

It's not sponsored by the GOP (where did you get that idea?), and doing it 2 years before the census is the obvious time to overhaul the system. It actually has bipartisan support, including both gov Schwarzenegger and former governor Gray Davis, as well as the support of Democrats in the state legislature, AARP, ACLU (SoCal) and a whole bunch of others.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_11_(2008) (which includes links and arguments for both sides).

[anigbrowl]

9. I'm strongly in favor.

It's a well-written proposal, with clear rules , checks and balances, and I am happy encouraging you to vote for it. I am fine with redistricting, and I think it should be carried out by an independent citizens' panel rather than the legislature.

[ContinentalOp]

11. NO NO NO!

Why would you want to turn CA red?

[anigbrowl]

13. What's your evidence for saying it'll 'turn CA red'?

That's totally bogus. I really wonder how many people here have even read the text of the proposal. Redistricting is abused to the benefit of Republican incumbents as well as Democratic ones. In general, any mucking around with congressional districts which are meant to preserve incumbent advantage are an affront to democracy.

[ContinentalOp]

19. Hyperbole...

but it's obvious that the only goal is to create more Republican districts. What other purpose could this plan possibly serve?

[anigbrowl]

25. Evidence please.

It is not at all obvious that it will 'create more Republican districts', nor does the proposed process give the GOP any advantage. GOP Congressmen like Duke Cunningham did great out of his oddly shaped district until he was convicted. Perhaps you can explain its strange shape to me.

[ContinentalOp]

30. The strange shape is easy to explain.

According to wikipedia: "The district was gerrymandered to exclude the relatively liberal areas of La Jolla, Bird Rock, downtown La Jolla, and UCSD. Those areas were moved to the more liberal 53rd District, and the more conservative community of Clairemont Mesa was added to the new 50th District."

And you want to get more Republicans involved in the redistricting process? :crazy:

[anigbrowl]

35. Which is exactly the sort of thing this measure seeks to eliminate

I want ordinary voters involved in the redistricting process, not 'more republicans'. The measure explicitly seeks to avoid this kind of gerrymandering, which is what makes many congressional districts so uncompetitive. Your 'get more republicans involved' is a false dichotomy. If anything, it gives a disproportionate say to independent voters who aren't affiliated with any party. That's fine by me.

[ContinentalOp]

42. This plan does nothing to involve "ordinary voters". It's a magnet for Republican activists.

I don't want Republicans or "independents" to have more of a voice than they deserve based on their numbers.

How exactly would this system eliminate gerrymandering? Let's say for argument's sake that the Republicans come up with some gerrymandering plans and targets. They have a bunch of activists apply for the board and get at least one person in there who is able to organize the other Republicans, the independents and even possibly some Democrats toward his plan. If the only opposition were some politically naive "average voters" on the Democratic side we would be screwed.

In the Cunningham example, how would your average voter know the specific local issues involved in that decision? The gerrymander-ers could easily come up with a reasonable sounding explanation for their proposal that uninformed people would buy into. Hey, just like the referendum process!

[anigbrowl]

45. Paranoid conspiracy theories.

One might just as well argue the Democrats would do the same thing. Once again, you have exactly zero evidence for your assertions, but have demonstrated that you haven't read the thing properly yet. Please, read the damn text before coming up with these fantasy-based objections.

[Kajsa]

14. No!

This is the second time the Repubs have tried this.
We voted it down, once before.

It's a power grab to get a higher percentage of Republican
districts!

[anigbrowl]

17. It's not the same measure that was proposed before

In fact, it's about as different as you could get. Please read the facts before postin such specious arguments. http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/analysis/prop11-analysis.htm

And no, I have nothing to do with the campaign for this initiative. It just caught my eye here on DU because I did a lot of thinking about it last week before deciding what I thought...something I recommend to others, many of whom apparently haven't even read the proposal properly.

[Kajsa]

No. it's not the same measure,

and I never stated it was.

The result is the same, to create more Republican districts.

[ContinentalOp]

21. I haven't read the actual proposal but even the explanation you linked to is absurd.

"An Applicant Review Panel, comprised of three auditors employed by the state, would narrow the applicants down to 60. The panel would pick the most qualified applicants based on analytic skill, impartiality, and appreciation of California’s diversity. The leaders of the Legislature could strike up to 24 of these names. From the remaining names, the State Auditor would then randomly draw the first eight commissioners. These eight commissioners would select the final six commissioners. The commission would have five members registered with each of the state’s two largest political parties (Democrat and Republican) and four members registered with other parties or as independent voters."

That's a well written, carefully thought out proposal!? It sounds like a bizarre bureaucratic nightmare that is easily open to abuse and manipulation. Which is of course precisely what it is designed to do. In fact, I take it back. It is rather cleverly well written in the sense that it's designed to appear fair and open while making the process even more shady.

[anigbrowl]

23. It's designed to let ordinary voters be members of the redistricting commission

I much prefer it to the current 'smoke filled rooms' method. And if you haven't read it, I don't think you're qualified to have an opinion on it. I'm sorry you find it so complex; what's your proposal for a simpler system? Keep letting the politicians draw their own districts?

[ContinentalOp]

38. Sorry, I haven't read Prop 8 either. I don't need to read it to know I oppose it. -nt-

[anigbrowl]

52. So, you vote based on things without reading them. Genius move, there.

Maybe you should run for office. You're clearly a person of great conviction, even if it isn't very informed.

[ContinentalOp]

61. You're honestly arguing that I would need to read the full text of Prop 8 to know that I oppose it?

:wtf:

[anigbrowl]

63. Considering it's only 14 words, it shouldn't take very long.

Myself, I wouldn't vote on a damn thing without having read it first. I like to form my own opinions on things.

The text of proposition 8 is: 'Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California'. Now you've read it, you can vote against it, if you haven't already.

[ContinentalOp]

66. See, it's funny how that doesn't change a damn thing.

Just like with this proposition. All I need to know to oppose Prop 11 is that Republicans and Democrats would get an equal vote in the process.

It is probably best to read the entire text of a proposition that you're going to vote for but it's hardly necessary to read the entire text of a law that's an obvious stinker.

[anigbrowl]

71. Well, I'm strongly in favor of a non-partisan redistricting solution

Because years of partisan redistricting have got us to where we are now, with a < 95% incumbency rate. Bear in mind that many of the seats that (I hope) the Democrats are going to pick up tomorrow in Congress are coming from districts where the incumbent isn't running again. Members of Congress being able to indirectly influence their electoral districts really reduces voter choice over the long run.

There's a good historical article on wikipedia, and it might surprise you to learn that even some of our states owe their shape to this kind of thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering

I support this tproposition because it puts redistricting on a non-partisan and constitutional basis, so that even if Ca were to swing back to being GOP territory in 20 years (like it was under Reagan, in case you'd forgotten), the party in power won't be able to redraw congressional districts to suit themselves. I very much hope the state stays blue forever, but I'd like that to be because Democrats win their electoral campaigns rather than redrawing the map to split the state into red and blue districts before people even go to the polls.

[bemildred]

15. After agonizing a bit, I like it.

I am far from convinced that it will entirely fix things, but I don't see how it could make things worse. And anyone that thinks this could somehow turn California red is not paying attention. Equitable redistricting, whatever that is, would more likely turn California day-glo blue that save the Republicans here.

[ContinentalOp]

18. How is giving more power to Republicans in the redistricting process...

going to lead to anything but redistricting that favors Republicans?

How is taking the power away from elected officials and putting it in the hands of an unaccountable board of randomly selected citizens going to make things better? It's clearly going to make things worse by hiding the redistricting behind an even more confusing cloak of bureaucracy with a "bipartisan" veneer.

And what is your response to the criticism that it would hurt representation of minority communities?

[bemildred]

24. First you explain how it will make things worse than the present "system".

It's not done in public now. The current system produced the incumbent-safe situation we have now. Show me how exactly it will make things worse, and then we'll talk. It is certainly true that it is no panacea. I think Ahnuld's motive is to prevent a 100% Democratic gerrymander of California, there is no way in hell Republicans are calling the shots in California these days, they are an endangered species.

[anigbrowl]

26. Certainly politicians are against anything that gives more power to regular voters.

...whose input on redistricting is currently a big fat zero. I had to think about it for a while, but I ended up liking it a lot too; it's an extremely fair system.

[ContinentalOp]

31. It's extremely unfair. I AM currently represented in the redistricting process...

because our elected officials control the process. And since we are a majority Democratic state, Democrats have a larger say in the process. Allowing a board of 3 people to appoint an equal number of private unaccountable citizens from each party is anything but fair. How do they represent me? Why should Republicans have an equal say when they don't have equal support?

[anigbrowl]

39. Which is inherently corrupt

You're not represented in any way. You can't even nominate yourself to be on the redistricting commission, but have to run for office. The 3 auditors do not appoint anyone, but select a pool from which commission members are drawn at random. Members of the two largest parties (whichever they are) get an equal say, closely followed by unaffiliated voters, to create a nonpartisan process. Districts should not be drawn for electoral advantage by the legislators themselves because they have an inherent conflict of interest in doing so.

Conflicts of interest generally lead to corruption, and given the incredibly low incumbent replacement rate in the US I'd say we have adequate evidence that districting is stacked in favor politicians rather than voters. Bizarro-world district shapes, no matter which party they favor, create voter ghettoes, and reduce social mobility, and reduce political accountability. It's pure divide-and-conquer, and I don't care for it.

[ContinentalOp]

47. Sorry, but it's represenative democracy.

I am, in fact, represented by my elected officials. I would not be represented by a "random" selection of voters from other parts of the state that know nothing about my area.

And yes, the auditors clearly get to decide who goes into the pool of 60 people. It's entirely up to their discretion. So if 100 Republicans were trained to follow a certain gerrymandering plan, 10 of them made it into the pool of 60 and one made it onto the randomly selected final panel, that would be enough for things to continue as they do now. Except that the Republicans would get an equal vote in the process.

[anigbrowl]

53. uhuh. sure.

[roody]

27. No! The 14 people appointed will not represent you or me.

They will be the powerful appointed by the powerful. Why should Repubs get the same number as Dems? There are many more Dems in CA.

[anigbrowl]

29. No, they won't be the 'powerful appointed by the powerful'.

Matter of fact, just yesterday I was saying that Ms Browl would be eligible for it if she wanted to. Are you a CA voter who has voted in 2 of the last 3 elections, but has not run for office in the last 10 years, or held a state or federal lobbying appointment, or donated more than $2000 to a single candidate? Then you're eligible.

It's explicitly designed to keep the powerful out of the redistricting process, and does not put appointments in anyone's gift.

[ContinentalOp]

36. "Eligible" does not mean that you would end up being appointed.

That appears to be solely at the discretion of a 3 person panel, followed by a silly "random lottery" phase. You think there aren't plenty of Republican die hards in CA who have never run for office or donated more than $2k? Who are the state auditors? What would prevent them from stacking the group of 60 applicants with Republican activists and ineffective conservative DINOs? Who are the "independents"?

[ContinentalOp]

37. In fact, this is precisely the kind of thing that "regular people" don't want to be involved in.

It's like jury duty. The system is going to be filled with activists. I'm sure Republicans are already planning on how to train their people to get into the process.

And why should regular people be involved in a process like this that they know nothing about? Short of having such a board for every district in the state, how would this process lead to a better understanding of regional and local issues and neighborhood differences?

Where will the board meet, in Sacramento? Will they be required to select people from throughout the state?

[anigbrowl]

55. If you had bothered to read it, you would already know the answers to your questions

I'd quite like to be involved in it, because I'm a stats and political science geek. And no, I'm not a Republican. Unfortunately, I can't be in 2010 because I won't have been a citizen long enough (I'm an immigrant) but my other half might. She's unaffiliated, in case you were wondering.

[roody]

67. eligible is one thing---appointed by those in power is another

[anigbrowl]

72. Please read up on the appointment process

It's not something that state politicians will be able to hand out as party favors. There are a lot of checks and balances to prevent that from occurring.

[roody]

78. I already voted no, but I realize this is one prop on which like-minded people

are voting differently.

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. No, this is a republican dirty trick

[anigbrowl]

59. So why is Gray Davis endorsing it?

[SoCalDem]

41. NO.. n.t

[ContinentalOp]

50. And anyway, what's the obsession with oddly shaped districts?

They should all be shaped into neat and tidy squares? It's all arbitrary anyway, just like city lines and county lines. I may have more in common with somebody in another county over than my next door neighbor. Keeping communities intact in the districting process would not necessarily make our government any more representative.

[anigbrowl]

58. Oddly shaped districts lead to oddly-assigned funding

Poor and wealthy communities get gerrymandered into different constituencies and lobbying money and funding gets channeled towards the wealthier ones. Both democrats and Republicans take advantage of this to get their backs scratched.

[Initech]

60. Abso-fucking-lutely NOT!!!!!

This is just a cheap GOP attempt to get CA's 55 electoral votes. Not on my watch.

[anigbrowl]

64. Um, redistricting doesn't and can't change the outcome of presidential elections.

This is the most bizarre objection yet. I don't think you understand how elections work. Redistricting has absolutely no effect whatosever on statewide votes such as ballot initiatives or voting in primary and general elections for the presidency. In fact it doesn't even affect US senate races.

Incidentally, it has supporters from both parties, including the previous (democratic governor of CA, Gray Davis.

[Initech]

73. It did in Texas. Just ask Tom Delay.

He completley redrew the entire state just to get his seat in Congress. And he was ousted in 2006.

[anigbrowl]

75. And how is Tom Delay's seat part of a presidential election?

Do you know the difference between presidential and congressional elections? Your post makes no sense at all.

Furthermore, what's being proposed in California is pretty much the opposite of the way redistricting was carried out in Texas. That was a legislative action, which also violated the federal Voting Rights act. What's being proposed for California is a completely different thing...but if you have congressional district mixed up with electoral college votes I am probably wasting my time trying to explain it to you.

[20score]

68. Hell no!! I'll repost what I wrote earlier this week.

With Democrats making up 44% of the population in California, and Republicans making up 33%, this proposition would be a disaster. Completely disenfranchising a good portion of the voters in the state. Hurting the state and the country.
There are numerous ads for this proposition touting fairness, but almost none against. They are trying to redistrict and possibly turn California red.

This is Tom Delay’s dream. We have to stop this.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop11-title...


This measure is being funded be Paul Singer, a right ideologue who has a long history of funding right-wing causes. Even the swift boat liars for truth. Is there any possibility he is doing this to be fair? To help Democrats? Minorities? Is there any possibility that after there is a redistricting there will be more Democratic districts? No, there isn't. Nor will it stay the same. So, what does that leave?

Yes, that's right! Less. So, with more Republican districts and less Democratic electoral votes, there will be more Californian voters not being represented. Or disenfranchised.

http://www.democrats.com/paul-singer:-giulianis-neocon-...

http://www.calitics.com/tag.do?tag=Prop+11

http://www.democrats.com/who-is-paul-singer

[anigbrowl]

74. Singer was one donor among many. Dem governor Gray Davis supports it too.

It's very far from being Tom deLay's dream, and you offer no evidence to show it would result in more Republican districts. You ignore the fact that the measure has quite a few Democratic supporters - as well as Gray Davis, there's Steve Westly, the AARP, the California Black chamber of commerce and a host of others.

I support it because it's a nonpartisan initiative, with a lot of checks and balances to ensure it serves voters and not any one political party.

[20score]

77. Keep tilting at windmills, dude.

The Republican's have been looking for something like this for years, something to increase the amount of red districts in California. You do know the Democratic Party is against it, plus what I said was true; but you seem like a true believer. Tell you what, in a few years, after you've helped them in their quest to increase the Republican districts in California, you can take comfort in the fact that "it was fair."

[Kickin_Donkey]

69. VOTE NO.

The California Democratic Party recommends that you vote no.

http://www.cadem.org/site/c.jrLZK2PyHmF/b.4213689/

It's a Republican power grab. Funny how when they're behind in the count in Congressional seats and in the state Senate and Assembly, the Pukes want redistricing. This is only a ploy to gain Puke seats at the expense of Democrats.

[pinniped]

76. No.

.

[Kajsa]

79. A recommendation for 'No' and the reason.

Redistricting,

http://www.lagunabeachdemocraticclub.com/DoorBack.aspx

Creates a 14 member redistricting commission responsible for
drawing new district lines for State Senate, Assembly, and Board of Equalization districts.
This measure is a Republican power grab that will result in the net loss of State Senate
and Assembly easts held by Democratsin California and a net loss in minority representation.
Opposed by Senator Barbara Boxer, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the NAACP,
the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), and the Asian-American Pacific
Legal Center.

---Laguna Beach Democratic Club

[Ichingcarpenter]

81. No, not the way its written and constitutional lawyers say no.

Why voting no on Proposition 11 will protect North Coast interests


Redistricting takes place every 10 years -- just after a census. In most states, the Legislature draws up the plan based upon the statistics the census determines.

At a glance, Proposition 11 sounds reasonable. But this is a Republican strategy feeding on the frustration felt by the annual Legislative budget impasse -- caused by those very Republicans. Proposition 11 is a cynical manipulation funded by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger who hopes to get more seats in the Legislature and eventually in Congress. It would cost the state millions of dollars to implement at a time when we don't have enough money to provide even basic services.

Two Democrats complicit in this disaster are former legislator Fred Keeley, who was angry when he lost the possibility of a Senate seat because of redistricting after he was termed out of the Assembly, and wealthy ex-eBay executive Steve Westly who figures this will help his candidacy for governor by raising his name recognition. The effect of this ill-conceived scheme is that Democrats will lose seats and the budget mess will paradoxically become even more partisan because more Republicans eager to diminish government will be in the mix.

Back at the beginning of September, there were 11.59 percent more Democrats than Republicans registered to vote in California -- almost 2 million more.

Yet, this information is not factored into Proposition 11's formula for commission membership. The commission in this flawed initiative would be made up of equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats (five each). All other parties combined would have two members. Is that fair?

If there is to be a commission, shouldn't its membership be based on the demographics of our state? Why have some newspapers, including The Press Democrat, endorsed the idea? Because polling data shows that legislative bodies have the lowest rating -- just like President Bush.

Here's why shuffling the deck with Proposition 11 could be a disaster for most of the things about which we care deeply. Right now, North Coast state Senate and Assembly and congressional districts are positioned vertically on the map. They include one-third of the California coast. That means that our local leaders speak with one voice about the need to understand our fragile marine environment while revitalizing the fishing industry, protecting the ocean from offshore oil drilling, working toward sustainable forest practices and keeping clean tourism a component of a healthy economy.

Imagine our districts laid out horizontally -- with a small part of the coast and a huge rural area including, say, Redding. Central Valley people are not as concerned about environmental protection. Their interests lie elsewhere. Would they care if we maintain the pristine quality of the ocean, our magnificent forests and keep oil out? They want unlimited water for farming, not fish.

My primary concern is that if we lose our coastal advantage we could have at least three Republican districts drawn horizontally in the northern part of the state -- thus ensuring offshore oil development.

Passage of Proposition 11 could combine populations with different affinities, issues and loyalties.

Vote no on Proposition 11. Much of what you care about may be at stake.

[tjwash]

82. Not no... HELL NO.

nt