tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post111955686556605959..comments2024-01-03T05:23:36.046-08:00Comments on The Citizens: Redistricting DetailsUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1119905380318462482005-06-27T13:49:00.000-07:002005-06-27T13:49:00.000-07:00Actually, RBR, the plan does call to re-draw until...Actually, RBR, the plan does call to re-draw until there is at least 1 of each party. So the only options are 2-1. And unanimity is then required.  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>Law Talking GuyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1119892020767990792005-06-27T10:07:00.000-07:002005-06-27T10:07:00.000-07:00I'm opposed to this system for the following reaso...I'm opposed to this system for the following reasons.<BR/><BR/>It is designed to exagerate Republican influence over district shapes despite the long term deep unpopularity of Republican ideas in California state wide. <BR/><BR/>The one interesting feature I saw was that Democratic selector and Republican selector can only appoint Judges "affiliated" with other parties. But what is to prevent Republicans from appointing Libertarians and Democrats from appointing Greens? Or both from appointing self described "independents" who everyone knows vote only one way. <BR/><BR/>I'm not that upset with the current system. Odd shapes in of themselves don't bother me. I don't know why people get upset by odd shapes anyway. What we should really care about is the policy generated. But we should acknowledge that ANY district shape will have biases towards particular kinds of policies. <BR/><BR/>Let me suggest a possible scenario. 3 judges are selected at random from this pool. But it happens that all three are Republicans (with such a small number of draws from the pool that is not that unlikely). We would then have a state with a massive majority in favor of the Democrats having its districts being drawn to favor Republicans. <BR/><BR/>This proposal by Schwarzenegger is far worse than the current system. In the current system, partisan majorities draw up the district boundaries. As those majorities shift, boundaries are redrawn (with a lag because of the 10 year census interval). Over time, the system is "fair." In Schwarzenegger's system there is no assurance that the boundaries being drawn will reflect the majority at all. <BR/><BR/>Now, I'm a big fan of minority views being able to block moves by the majority but I'm not a fan of the minority being able to impose its rule on the majority. Schwarnzenegger's plan seems to me like an attempt by an increasingly unpopular governor from a persistently unpopular party to lock in a system that give his constituents the potential to control California's representation for decades based on little more than a coin flip!<BR/><BR/>And a grand finale of complaints: Why are judges assumed to be more reasonable and "objective" than anyone else? Why not a random selection of tax payers? And why only 3? Why not 30? At least with 30 selections the "random" element would be more genuine. <BR/><BR/>Of course the real solution would be to have the entire state set up as one giant electoral district with multiple seats elected state wide. But that would create biases in favor of other policies. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A><A HREF="http://thecitizens.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="">Raised By Republicans</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6762928.post-1119641343382972202005-06-24T12:29:00.000-07:002005-06-24T12:29:00.000-07:00So, the minority and majority get equal representa...So, the minority and majority get equal representation in the selection. I see why Republicans prefer that to the current plan of the majority contending only with the possibility of veto. This also makes it just as likely that 2 of 3 will be Republicans. <BR/><BR/>At the end of the day, 3 people will make the decision with almost no review (public vote isn't much here, up or down on everything). <BR/><BR/>I have no problem with using this system for the whole state government, but for the fed seats it bothers me. In Texas, they gerrymander at will in favor of Republicans. Why should only blue states have to be fair?<BR/><BR/>  <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>// posted by<A><B> </B></A>Law Talking GuyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com