Let's kick off our coverage of the Nov. 8th California special election here on The Citizens.
First off, here's a handy guide to what several groups are recommending. But I'm more interested in hearing what the members or guests of The Citizens think...
So leave a comment below!
Thursday, October 13, 2005
Special Election
Posted by Bell Curve at 6:51 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
I voted absentee yesterday. The one proposition I could not figure out was Proposition 80, about electricity regulation/deregulation. I spent about 15 minutes trying to read it, which is tragically small from a public policy standpoint but far more than most propositions will get from most voters. In the end, I cast the only sane vote: NO.
I did, however, vote "yes" on the proposed redistricting reform. There are lots of reasons to vote "no" on that proposition, mostly political: it will probably help Republicans. But I do think a semblance of nonpartisanship beats the present system.
// posted by LTG
I'm suprised and pleased by your vote on the redistricting measure, LTG! After our discussions of redistricting on this blog, I had assumed you would be opposed to it. I am delighted to see that I was mistaken.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting measures is the most ill concieved recipe for undemocratic disaster I've ever heard of. I'd much rather have redisctricting done by democratically accountable, OPENLY PARTISAN and competetive political parties than by SECRETLY CONSERVATIVE "NON-PARTISAN" judges.
I've repeatedly argued that there is no such thing as a "non-partisan" person with political power. Everyone has political political preferences and those preferences will be reflected in their decisions. The question is how do we make those people accountable. This ballot measure makes the people making the decisions at least one step further removed from democratic accountability. Bad idea.
The measure calls for approval of the districts by voters. Geez! What a sham! They would presumably submit them to the voters in a bloc with no possibility for amendment. Voters either approve all or none. That gives these judges EXTREME lattitude in how they set up the districts.
Finally, I would ask why bother? Why does the SHAPE of districts bother you? If you are upset about districts that favor incumbents, changing the shape won't do much. You'll just be favoring different KINDS of incumbents. Admit that your objection to the current district shapes is a PARTISAN objection to the ideological characteristics of the candidates favored. In other words all these claims to wanting a "non-partisan" process are nonsense! They want a PARTISAN process that favors DIFFERENT PARTISANS than are favored now.
If you folks out there in California pass this silly proposition, you'll regret it. And none more so than the idiosyncratic independent and third party voters who complain that the two parties are not different enough. Mark my words! You'll regret this.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Oh, yeah. Vote no on all the other stuff too.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I discussed some of the redistricting details on an earlier post. If you're interested, it's worth having a look. It might surprise you pleasantly and answer some of your fears. Now, as for RxR's comments...
RxR asks proponents of this measure to admit that our, "objection to the current district shapes is a PARTISAN objection to the ideological characteristics of the candidates favored." While I have no doubt this is Gov. Schwarzenneger's reason for promoting this initiative, it is not mine. I'm quite happy with the ideological characteristics of the current California State legislature.
I oppose the current redistricting process on principle (I do not object to the "shapes", per se, although they are certainly indicative of what irks me about the process). What bothers me is this: when the party in power alters election rules to increase its chances of staying in power, that feels highly anti-democratic to me.
While the proposed new process will not eliminate all partisan bias, I can safely say that any partisan bias will (a) be less extreme, and (b) will not consistently favor the party in power. In other words, we're replacing predictable partisan bias with an element of randomness. To me, that is a big improvement. And if the end result is a legislature looking much like the current one, I will still consider the new process a success.
I agree with RxR that the requirement for voters' approval is something of a sham, since it will be all-or-nothing and since the newly drawn districts will be implemented before they are approved, and will stay in place until the voters approve a new plan. But on the other hand, voters have no direct say under the current system at all.
I think I'm voting "NO" on everything else too.
Any "fairer" redistricting plan would favor incumbents and Democrats less. Just a fact here in CA. I voted for the change because I do not think districts should be changed just because the party in power changes, which is what happens now, and what Repubs are doing in the South (e.g., Texas) as they get power. I want to set a precedent. I also can't imagine it getting a whole lot worse than it is now.
But I agree with RBR otherwise.
// posted by LTG
In fact, I agree with RBR that I will probably end up regretting my vote.
Actually, there are lot of checks in the plan to ensure that is not packed with conservatives (although I agree that former judges are more conservative than the public as a whole). I want to see districts drawn based on city and county borders, above all. I suspect that ex-judges will be inclined to do that more.
I am reminded of Molly Ivins' wonderful story about implementation of the Supreme Court's requirement that districts should aim to be "compact and contiguous." She reported a Texas rep whose district had been gerrymandered away by a district with a blob at one end, a long thin spindle, then another smaller blob at the other. He said to the chairman, "Lookahere, you call that compac' an' contiguous?" Then the chairman thought for a minute, and drawled, "In an artistic way, it is."
What is the current redistricting process, for those of us not in the know?
// posted by Bell Curve
The current redistricting process is that the majority party in the state legislature draws the lines. Typically they draw lines that favor their own candidates by making sure that their party is going to win as narrowly as is comfortable in as many districts as possible while concentrating their opponents in either districts where they win by large margins in a small number of districts or are spread amongst the other districts such that they are unlikely to ever win in any of them.
This is a good basis for debate:
"What bothers me is this: when the party in power alters election rules to increase its chances of staying in power, that feels highly anti-democratic to me."
Nearly every democracy gives incumbents substantial advantages in reelection. For example in parliamentary systems the incumbent government may chose the timing of the next election. Typically they time the next election to coincide with their peak popularity (in many parliamentary systems the government even controls the prime interest rates which they manipulate to spark bubble economies that peak right at the time of the election).
I guess what I'm saying is that if one objects to the redistricting on principle as being undemocratic than one should also object to nearly every parliamentary system on Earth.
If incumbency advantage is the main complaint then efforts would be far better directed at pork barrel projects, franking priviledges and free air time on the news.
My concern with the redistricting issue is that this "sollution" is based on the rediculous proposition that judges are, by virtue of their professional experience and good breeding, somehow to be taken as Platonic philosopher kings will know what is best for us. The largely irrelevent measure of submitting their proposals to ficticious "checks" like the closed rule approval referendum is only a fig leaf for what is ultimately an elitist, undemocratic and unnaccountable process. At least what we have now is accountable to the extent that if a legislative majority does something we don't like we can vote against them. How would these judges be removed? They serve on the committee and then go back into retirement? What way do the voters have to punsih them after the fact for abusing their power? None. Because of that there is no deterance of abuses short of prosecution for outright corruption.
At best this process will pack the legislature (and the Congressional delegation) with centrist candidates. But does centrism really reflect California's politics? At worst, it would be an excuse to pack the legislature and Congressional delegation with the kind of people rich old farts in robes like. Can you imagine California run by Harriet Meirs clones?
This is a proposition that - like most of Schwarzenegger's issues - is designed to appeal to cynicism. "Politicians are bad so we should take the power away from them and give it to someone else." But power is what makes a normal person a politician. Taking power from the annoying but accountable Peter and giving it to the unaccountable but saintly Paul will only make a tyrrant of Paul.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
On rereading my last comment I feel I should clarify why I think this redistricting reform at best will result in lots more centrist candidates. In the system we have now, there are a lot more "safe" districts in which BOTH Republicans and Democrats have big enough majorities built in that they don't have to worry about doing much more than "playing to their base." Ideally, this redistricting plan would randomize the demographic make up of the voters enough to force candidates to worry about independents and weak partisans from the other party.
To people who are either idealistic about the possibilities or cynical about the status quo, this might sound good. But consider that a major complaint in American politics is that the two parties are too similar. This is an especially common complaint from exactly the kind of voter who likes "insurgent" candidates like Schwarzenegger or former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura. But if you remove these "safe" seats the effect will be to drive the two parties closer together further eliminating what differences exist now.
If you LIKE centrist politics based on a never ending grand coalition between the two major parties, this redistricting scheme will look great. If you prefer politics based on competition and advesarial confrontation, this will be a disaster. I think that in advesarial politics, one finds accountability. On the other hand I like centrists. In the end though accountability has to be more important.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
So ... if you think all politicians should have appeared in the movie "Predator", you shouldn't vote yes on this proposition.
// posted by Bell Curve
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
- Federalist 51 (Madison and/or Hamilton)
// posted by Raised By Republicans
RxR argues that retired judges may well be biased. But I'd rather have a system in which bias is possible than a system in which bias is certain.
RxR's mentioned parliamentary systems: as a matter of fact, I do object to the power of a governing coalition in parliament to call elections when the timing favors them. But it has the saving grace that elections can be called by the opposition if the government falls apart--whereas in our system we're stuck with gridlock until the next cycle. But yes, RxR, that bothers my sense of fairness.
As for frankling privileges, I'm not fond of those, and I think we need to do a lot more to guarantee equivalent press coverage for the opposing candidates during an election. I think I've been consistent here.
"Pork barrel" projects, however, do not fall in the same category. Because the ability to deliver pork is not some advantage of politicians that does nothing but skew the re-election process in favor of incumbents by shaping the electorate to your advantage, choosing the right time, or getting free resources. Some would argue that delivering pork is their job.
The problem with judges is that bias is just as certain with them as with the elected officials who do it now. It is not that bias is possible with judges. It is certain in BOTH cases. The difference is that in the proposed redistricting system a judge can abuse their power to satisfy their bias with absolutely not check on their power other than the rather crude "check" of submitting the entire plan to a referendum under a closed rule vote (no amendments). Under the current system amendments are possible (through the legislative process). And if a party is so obnoxious as to go beyond the pale, the people can react against them in the next election - however unlikely that may be, it is more than we can do for a panel of judges who serve once and then retire again.
The issue is not so much bias (although I think Dr Strangelove has consitently under estimated the potential for bias from these "non-partisan" panels). The biggest issue is accountability. The current system has the accountability of the electoral process however flawed it may be. The proposed system would have none at all.
In the end we are back at our argument about whether it is better to trust in Plato's wise and benevolent autocrats or Madisonian institutionalism. Do we develop the means to select Golden Guardians or do we develop the means to prevent even the worst of us from abusing our rights? No government has long lasted based on Platonic principles and Liberty is always the first casualty in such systems. Madison's approach has spread accross the entire globe in various forms to the great benefit of humanity.
My point in bringing up parliamentary systems was not accuse Dr. Strangelove of being inconsistent but rather to suggest that features he accuses of being undemocratic are acutally quite common among systems generally regarded as democratic. He is certainly entitled (and possibly correct) to object to those systems as well. And I may be merely making a semantic argument but I believe it is a bit off the mark to use the term "undemocratic" when talking about one of the most common features of democratic governmental systems - namely incumbency advantage mechanisms.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Where is this accountability you speak of in the current system? Where are these supposed checks and balances? The minority party in the legislature has no say in redistricting, and neither do the voters. No incumbent has ever been held accountable for their redistricting schemes because the redistricting is designed to prevent accountability.
Would the randomly selected retired judges under Prop. 77 bring their personal political biases to the table? Sure, some will. But they will not be the direct beneficiaries of the maps they draw. And unamimity among them will be required. And there will be guidelines to follow. And at least the voters will have some opportunity to reject the plan.
At least the Prop. 77 system has some checks and balances in it! As for the current system, the hideously gerrymandered districts we have speak for themselves--as does the 100% re-election of incumbents in California.
How can the voters hold the legislature accountable for their atrocious redistricting plans? I'll tell you how.
Prop. 77 is how.
The accountability comes at elections. And while not immediate it is not the case that redistricting has resulted in a permanent majority for one party or the other. Yes, it is a feature that majorities use to their advantage. My question would be so what? At least those majorities were elected and will be subject to re-election or defeat in the future. Such is not the case with the proposed panel in prop 77.
The judges are not randomly selected. Once you restrict the selection to judges the selection is biased towards rich, conservative, highly educated, suburban people.
Besides, even if the panels were truely random, randomness is not accountability. Accountability demands that there be consequences to the people in power for the actions they take while in power. Prop 77 does not allow for the judges themselves to face any consequences at all - or even the remotest possibility of consequences - for anything they do while drawing the districts. They cannot be impeached, they aren't subject to reelection. The only semblance of accountability is that their entire package of districts will be submitted to the voters under a closed rule vote. The close rule vote is critical to understanding how meaningless this step is. Voters will barely look at much less understand the implications of the districts proposed to them. Consider also how these approving referenda are likely to work in practice. Will they come up for the vote along with Congressional candidates or Governor? Or will they appear on some secondary ballot in the Spring when turnout is certain to be very low?
If you think the redistricting issue in the US is a problem (it isn't even in my top ten), you'll go absolutely APE when you hear about what Silvio Berlusconi is doing in Italy. He is proposing changing the entire electoral system from a mixed PR/Plurality system to a pure PR system. The speculation is that he is doing this because his party is dropping in popularity and PR would prevent his party from suffering a total defeat. Compared to that the odd frog shaped district in the US is barely worth bothering with.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I must disagree on one score, RBR. I think Gerrymandering in its modern (i.e., highly effective) form is strangling democracy here.
// posted by LTG
It's interesting... what RxR decrys as a lack of accountability on the part of the Prop. 77 panel of retired judges is what I praise as a lack of vested interest. I can see both points of view. There's no personal penalty or reward for the panel members that can come out of this.
There is one advantage here. If the resulting plan does not have compact, contiguous districts, the courts are authorized to intervene (provided someone complains within 45 days). Under the current system, there is no remedy for districts that are gerrymandered (unless it's blatant racism.)
So who knows? Prop. 77 may just end up involving the active judges, as we have had to do several times when the legislature and the governor were not of the same party.
Why judges? I think retired nannies would be less biased. They would be more comforting looking. I mean who could imagine a nice grandmotherly lady screwing with their districts? Essentially this is little different than the rationale for putting this in the hands of retired judges.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I think the idea is that retired judges have been "vetted" to some extent. They are generally considered to be upstanding members of the community. They also have--presumably--considerable life experience attempting to follow laws and make impartial judgments, despite personal bias.
And in a way, that's the heart of the matter. I believe that people can make impartial judgments despite their personal biases. I am not sure if RxR believes that this is even possible... but even if his views are not that strong on the subject, I think it is at least fair to say (please correct me?) that RxR believes one should not rely on the willingness of people to be objective, no matter how carefully one selects them nor how cleverly one balances the process in which they are asked to do so. I believe this is why RxR says, "there is no such thing as non-partisan."
In my view, our entire justice system relies on the very objectivity that RxR denies. And certainly our justice system has its problems with non-partisanship (I refer you to Bush v. Gore). But the U.S. constitution employs both the Madisonian model of checks and balances in the legislature and the Platonic model of guardians in the judiciary. And I feel that protecting the fairness of the elections process (which Gerrymandering threatens, in my view) fits more in the judicial model than the legislative one.
You are right about my views and wrong about the legal system. Judges in the judiciary have a series of checks on their power. They can be overruled in a variety of ways by superior courts and even if that is rare the threat is sufficient to impose boundaries.
At the highest levels, judges can be (and have been) impeached. And again, even if that is rare the threat is sufficient to impose boundaries.
And of course you are ignoring the fundamentally advesarial (i.e. partisan, based on competing biases) nature of the American legal system.
These judges would be subject to none of the checks of the normal judicial system in the USA.
No democratic system has ever been succesfully established relying on the good graces of unchecked men (and we're talking about a profession that is overwhelmingly male). One of the many concerns I have with this system is the blind trust in rich old men just because they are rich old men. The fact that they are judges is just a marketing scam. People are people and have the same propensity to flaws regardless of their profession.
Why judges? Would LTG care to share his assesment of certain judges he's met and their ability to think objectively and with the common good at heart, uninformed by either ideology or personal connection?
// posted by Raised By Republicans
"These judges would be subject to none of the checks of the normal judicial system in the USA."
Actually, the redistricting plan that the Prop. 77 panel of judges draws up can be challenged in court. The proposition specifically allows for that.
No, I would not care to share my assessment of any by name, although RBR knows through other discussions that I have met judges whose honesty and fairness are seriously impaired. I would suggest, however, that the proposition we are discussing is better crafted than RBR gives it credit for. The biases of individual judges are about as well checked as ever could be. Even though we cannot expected judges to be apolitical, at least their bias is not in favor of saving their own jobs as incumbents, which is the unchecked bias of the legislature. The hope is that the political parties will have enough influence to create a panel of judges with balanced biases between the parties, and no particular bias in favor of the incumbents.
// posted by LTG
Post a Comment