Why you should vote YES on 11.

I present to you California Congresional District 19, Home of George Radanovich, the guy who wanted to bulldoze the Sierra Club's lodge in Yosemite and once proposed privatizing the national park system. He's also my representative. This is the most gerrymandered and solidly Republican districts in the state, and one which is designed specifically to disenfranchise tens of thousands of Democratic voters in the Central Valley. When TJ Cox ran against Radanovich several years ago, one commenter stated bluntly: "Cox could spend $10 million, and Pelosi could spend another $10 million and Radanovich would still win in a landslide". That's tragic, since the 19th was a DEMOCRATIC district until it was gerrymandered into a "Republican Safe" seat in 1992. He's up for re-election in just a few days here, and nobody even bothered to run against him this time. There's no point in doing so. Because of that, one of the most evil Republicans in Congress will get to serve another term, and tens of thousands of angry Democrats here in the Valley will get to leave that spot blank once again. I personally know Democrats who completely skip elections because it seems like we've been abandoned by the party around here.

I've seen several posts here from people saying that they won't support 11 because it MIGHT make some gerrymandered "Democrat Safe" seats competitive, and they don't want to run that risk. Keep in mind that the gerrymandering blade swings both ways, and that in many areas we will pick up additional Democratic voters which will swing Republican seats back our way.

A vote AGAINST 11 is a vote FOR disenfranchisement. A vote AGAINST 11 is a vote AGAINST your fellow Democratic voters who simply want an opportunity to swing our state further to the left.

11 is a lie that is being pushed by republicans so that they can redistrict the state to better favor their party and to screw the state as horribly as they can so that some day in 20 year we'll go red.

I live in one of those crappy districts too. The good news for me is the one i live in is turning more blue every year. With just a couple seats overturned the republicans will be mostly toast in California anyway :shrug:

First of all they throw an *equal* number of Dems as Republicans on these redistricting teams. That is WRONG, since this state as far more registered Dems than it has Republicans. This panel should reflect the population breakdown, not what someone probably calls "fairness".

Not only that, but it sounds like they DO try to look at population to throw in some "independent" reps on this panel too, defying the NOT using of population to reflect the Dem/Republican split.

And if you aren't specific about who you put in those "independent" slots, to ensure that you have a good snapshot of what independents are composed of today, then Republicans might actually get an ADVANTAGE in these panels (if the Green Party, etc. is kept out and Libertarians or other more right wing independents are included instead).

This is the same trick they tried when they also tried to have an "equal number" of judges appointed to a panel in the special election Arnold had, which lost. In that election, one of the things we used to defeat it was to say that the independent voters weren't represented in this mix. Now it sounds like they put in independents, but the balance still appears to be too skewed right wing for my tastes. I voted it down and still feel it was the right thing to do.

At least not necessarily. What prop 11 does do is under mine the incumbents in gerrymandered districts. It is just as likely that extremist politicians in gerrymandered districts would lose the primaries to more centrist challengers as it would be for incumbents to lose to the other party. Either way I'm voting for it because I'm tired of politicians abusing the system for their own benefit.

The commission would have 5 republicans, 5 democrats, and 4 "independent".
If it were fair, it would be 4 democrats, 3 republicans, and 2 "independent".
It's not going to help third parties either, even the Green Party is against it.
If this passes, districts could be gerry-mandered even worse.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_California

Of the 15,712,753 California voters registered for the February 5, 2008 primary election,

* 43.0% were Democrats,
* 33.3% were Republicans,
* 4.3% were affiliated with other political parties, and
* 19.4% were non-partisan ("Decline to State") voters.<9>

Or a computer program that drew districts primarily on the basis of geography. Or have districts to which voters are assigned at random, with no connection to where they live.

Frankly, having it made up of ANYONE other than the legislature would be better than what we have now.

If this passes, districts could be gerry-mandered even worse.

Not to be flippant about this, but I can't imagine a system more gerrymandered than what we have now.

I am going to be stuck with Tom McClintock until he dies.

In case y'all haven't noticed, the Golden State is seriously f*cked up. The politicians feel zero accountability to the voters. Prop 11 might not be the perfect solution, but the status quo is untenable. We're sinking.

although I have a Democratic assemblyman and senator. The GOP doesn't bother to even run a serious candidate for either office, so once someone gets in they're there until they get term-limited out - when they can go on to the next office. The prospect of actual competition may keep them from being complacent.

11 is simply a scheme by Republicans to gerrymander the state in their favor. No thanks.

The present system gives a little over 1/3 of the seats to Republicans, who are only 31.4% of the population.

Read prop 11 carefully and you see it allows Republicans to stack the deck of the redistricting commission by packing it with GOP stooges who register as independents.

No thanks. 11 is GOP Gerrrymandering. Period

NO ON 11!

Right now both Democratic and Republican voters are being denied real choices. There are about twice as many independents who are former Democrats as there are former Republicans. The parties are not being responsive to the people. There is no competition. I don't want anyone to be stacking the deck.

11 is GOP Gerrrymandering.

I think you are the one who needs to read it.

the way they set up districts just goes against basic tenets of democracy

you have these districts that are designed to keep electing the same people time and time again

it's a huge joke

I hope that California takes the lead on this issue and gets some real reform in place

opposition from the Democratic Party I realize.

However, this little blurb from the Sacramento Bee makes sense to me:

"Currently, lawmakers have the power to draw their own districts, ensuring that incumbents are re-elected and that the status quo stays in place. Proposition 11 would end this conflict of interest and create a new independent commission to handle redistricting."

I plan to vote Yes on 11.

more fair. I voted NO.

Let them clean up texas first. This gives unfair advantage ie equal representation to a minority party

Right now that is being controlled by incumbent legislators. District boundaries not be determined by partisan interests at all. Since it is not possible to come up with a group of people who are guaranteed to be non-partisan, the next best thing is to create a situation where partisan interests cancel each other out.

can redistrict fairly when more than 50% of the people are Dems.

I don't think so.

Republicans in CA and in other states are laughing at us for being so naive as to give up without a fight.

The Repubs already have too much power in the legislature, which allows a small number of Repubs to block our budgets.

...more than 50% of the people are Dems....

That is not correct. Well under 50% of registered voters are Democrats. As of October 20, the figure is 44.4%.

With the exception of the most recent voting cycle (a discrepancy that I attribute to widespread disgust over the Bush administration), the Democratic Party's share of the registration pie has been declining, at about twice the rate the GOP has been bleeding voters. In 1992 we had 49.1% Democratic voters.

The reason for that is simply that the Democratic Party is progressively failing to support the interests of a larger and larger number of people. The present system is harmful to our party, because it allows legislators in "safe" districts to ignore the voters.

District boundaries should be based primarily on geography, and then on economic and cultural factors. Party should not play any part in it at all. Having a politically balanced commission should fix that aspect of the problem.

I am all for reasonable boundaries. BUT I do NOT trust Republicans.

The Astute Reader will notice that the GOP is also over-represented in terms of population vs. number of seats held in the Assembly and Senate. The GOP isn't being responsive to voters either (as shown by the rate at which people have been leaving the party), yet it holds a larger-than-deserved share of "safe" seats just as does the Democratic Party. The system is broken.

I am all for reasonable boundaries. BUT I do NOT trust Republicans.

OK, please try this two-part thought experiment and see if your concern pans out:

Part 1

Under a new system of allocating legislative districts, voters are assigned round-robin or at random to Assembly and Senate districts. Your district assignment has nothing to do with where you live; all districts are equal in size and consist of a random mix of Democrats, Republicans, Liberterians, Greens, DTS voters, etc.

- What is the worst possible outcome that could happen?

- Is that outcome any worse than the system we have now?

- Is there any possibility at all that such a system, which would be completely immune to political gerrymandering, could produce (assuming voter registration statistics don't change) anything close to a Republican majority in either house of the legislature?

Part 2

Instead of randomly assigning voters to district, let's say a computer program is developed to create like-sized districts based on the following criteria, in decreasing order of importance:

1. Geographic compactness

2. Adherence to county and municipal boundaries

3. Common economic interests (e.g. agricultural vs. tourism vs. military)

Repeat the three questions above.

I can't imagine that taking party affiliation out of the process for determining district boundaries could possibly make things worse than they are now. Both within the parties at the primary level, and in the general elections, candidates would be forced to answer to the present concerns and needs of the voters. Term limits have helped, but have led to a system of quasi-Apostolic successions.

Neither party is responding to the voters. Moderate and independent voices within BOTH PARTIES are systematically shut out under the present system. If the Democratic Party was really representing the interests of just under 2/3 of the population, something much closer to 2/3 of the population would register as Democrats. The gap between the population of registered Democrats and the portion of seats held by Democratic politicians IMO clearly shows a disconnect. Our party is not listening to voters. That's why (with the small exception of the last election cycle) they have been bailing out.

others on this thread will point out.

You need to get pissed off at the California Democratic Party. There was a trade off when the last redistricting was completed. Some districts were gerrymandered to be safe publican seats - I know I live in one as well. The 46th goes up the coast from Huntington Beach to Palos Verdes and includes Catalina. It was carefully drawn to exclude Latino neighborhoods but include gated beach areas.

I'm voting 'no' on 11.

Yes on prop 11. I want to see an end to gerrymandered districts and I believe this will ultimately make the Democratic Party stronger and more accountable because neither party will be able to ignore voters and they'll have to really sharpen their game in order to win competitive elections. I believe Democrats can win the war of ideas but to do that we need new leadership and new people to run for office. New people like Obama have revitalized the Democratic Party and more such fresh faces with fresh ideas will only strengthen the party more.