Joe Matthews On Why the Redistricting Measure (Prop 11) will Lose

6 seats indeed (0.00 / 0)

It's the Republicans' bid to stave off the California version of the tidal wave that is about to crash on their heads just as it's going to hit their national-level colleagues.

I do wish Joe had frontally attacked the ridiculous claim that the lack of redistricting reform is why the state legislature is "dysfuncitonal" - the real problem is the 2/3 rule and the Yacht Party's effective use of it to hold the state hostage - but his arguments were fairly good.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 18:52:47 PM CDT

the problem is (0.00 / 0)

that the local media has completely internalized this concept of redistricting as a panacea, with George "California's High Broderist" Skelton leading the way.

Now, I don't think it'll matter even a little bit whether or not this thing passes - after the organizing in this Presidential year, we'll have outdistricted the redistricters.  But that doesn't mean it's just dumb to look at redistricting in a box, separate from all of the other ills of state government.

---

by: David Dayen @ Fri Jun 27, 2008 at 20:36:24 PM CDT

Prop 11 is pro-democracy (0.00 / 0)

There will be 153 legislative elections in California in November and I know I can tell you the winner in 150 of them.  Probably all of them.

I have no special gifts.  I do not see the future.  I see the past.  I know that politicians (like everyone else) don't like to have job reviews and they certainly don't like job insecurity, so they jointly draw up lines so that incumbants are protected.  Republicans politicians went shoulder to shoulder with Democratic politicians on this one.  

The only question is, "in what sense is this a democracy?"

In what other country would we find this form of incumbancy protection a characteristic of credible elections.

We are fond of lecturing other countries about democracy.  It would be wonderful if we might practice it here.  I don't view reapportionment reform as any kind of cure-all, but if we don't have the self-confidence to stand up to real elections every two years, then we don't deserve to run the state.

---

by: smoker1 @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 00:43:23 AM CDT

You look at the population patterns (8.00 / 1)

in California, and tell us exactly how redistricting reform will make a real difference.  Go ahead.  And then explain how it will make, say, a balanced number of seats vulnerable for each major party, instead of just helping the Republicans to marginally increase their stranglehold on the 1/3 strangle-government-by-blackmail system they've got now.

No hurry.  We'll wait.  Otherwise, you're just regurgitating talking points about the horrors of incumbency (see also, the failed reform of term limits).

Redistricting is ersatz reform that assumes that one particular element of the political spoils system -- geographical districts -- should be handled in a theoretically nonpartisan way by allowing representation of the minority party out of proportion to that selected by the people in the state, in order to get to the (assumed) good of "competitive" districts, which should breed the (assumed) good of "moderation" between (in the US) the center-right and the far right.

Real reform is hard.  Real reform would mean, for example, public financing to allow people to compete without selling out to large donors. But nobody wants to do that, because it costs money, and it prevents the legalized bribery of transactional politics.  Redistricting is relatively cheap, and actually increases the need for big-donor money to run a campaign, since "competitive" districts means more expensive races.

Or one could change the voting and representation systems to allow minority parties to have a real chance of being elected.  But nobody wants to do that either, because that would break the stranglehold that the two major parties have on the process and (more important) the spoils system.

---

by: jsw @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 09:22:06 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

People vs. Politicians (0.00 / 0)

I'm not looking at this through the prism of Republicans and Democrats but rather people vs. politicians.

We have plenty of problems.  One of them is that it takes 2/3rds vote to pass a budget.  That ought to be changed.

Also, we have one political party that is owned by the Christian Right and they are not really a statewide force.  They are regionally important and, well, quite hidious really.

I understand that competitive elections are damned expensive.  Perhaps we should save a little more money and go the Chinese route.  Their elections are much more efficient and less expensive.  They just don't have the legalized bribery of transactional politics.

China does, however, have other problems.  

What do you have against holding incumbents accountable?  What do you have against democracy?

---

by: smoker1 @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:08:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You didn't refute his points (0.00 / 0)

These far right folks are not representing districts that can become competitive without gerrymandering on an even larger scale than is currently happening. Unless you're going to draw long, narrow districts connecting Long Beach to San Juan Capistrano it's just not going to happen.

As you acknowledge, redistricting isn't even the real problem. Instead it's the 2/3 rule, which enables the far right, and which occurs against a backdrop of transactional politics.

None of that will be changed by redistricting. So why are we wasting our time?

Democrats are already, on their own, making elections in traditionally Republican seats more competitive. It's part of a long-term process to eliminate conservatism in California. There again, why is redistricting relevant to that long-term effort?

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 11:12:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm not worried about Republicans (0.00 / 0)

I couldn't care less if there is ever another Republican elected to anything.  

Reapportionment reform will do nothing to help the 2/3 budget rule.  It will also do nothing to help global warming and will not help a bit on the problems in Tibet.

Reapportionment reform will reduce (not eliminate) the political manipulations of district boundries for the purpose of incumbency protection.  That's it.  Nothing more.

Will that result in more Republicans?  I don't know.  More Democrats?  I don't know.  All I know is that all elected officials will need to think more about their constituants and I'm liking that.

---

by: smoker1 @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 13:40:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

electing republicans (0.00 / 0)

I think it's fairly important that the state have a robust second party which is able to attract enough votes to hold the primary party accountable for mistakes, bad ideas, and corruption; almost every system in which there is effectively only one party has historically developed such traits.

I don't particularly care, in California, if that second party is the Republicans, the Greens, or the Libertarians; but I want one of them to serve that role, and I find highly frustrating the fact that none of them are able to.

---

by: aphrael @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:09:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

So how would you get (0.00 / 0)

the CRP to the place where they could serve as a useful check on the transactional politics that are de rigeur in Sacramento?

Because in their current form, they're entirely useless -- they're obsessed with taxes, unions and below-the-waist issues -- and there's no plausible way forward.

And redistricting reform would do exactly nothing to change the character of the CRP or to help another party arise, since almost all redistricting reform takes as a given that the two incumbent parties should have the biggest say in the redistricting.

---

by: jsw @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 19:24:58 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Holding Incumbents Accountable (0.00 / 0)

Can happen outside of the general election.  Certainly there is NO DISTRICT in SF that a Republican could reasonably win. Yet an incumbent was challenged and defeated.  Prop 11 will never make it possible for a Republican to be competitive in that Senate District. There is no way.

That is what we have primaries for. Maybe it will force 6 seats into competition, but please, let's leave the grandiose statements about democracy out of this. This isn't even remotely about that. There are ways to make the CA Government more efficient (namely abolishing the anti-democratic 2/3 requirements), but Prop 11 is not one of them.

Shouldn't 3 strikes apply to Arnold? Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3. Life Sentence!

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 17:29:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

holding incumbents accountable (0.00 / 0)

sure, that can happen in primaries. that doesn't change the fact that having only one party plausibly able to form a majority makes it harder to hold incumbents accountable.

i'm in favor of abolishing the 2/3 requirements. but i'm also in favor of some form of redistricting reform -- not because of efficiency, but because i have a serious theoretical problem with incumbent legislators of any party being able to draw districts so as to ensure their re-election.

i voted against the last one because it was a bad reform; shifting the power to draw districts to judges is not the answer. and i haven't read prop. 11 so i don't know how i'll vote on it.

but the current system isn't democratic, and i'd like to see it replaced with a system which is.

---

by: aphrael @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:27:29 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

You really believe (0.00 / 0)

That Democrats have a majority in the Legislature because of redistricting?

The fact that Dems regularly win 55% of the presidential vote, that both our Senators are Dems who win reelection with 55-60%, that Democratic registration is much larger than Republican registration, has NOTHING to do with it?

As far as I can tell those who support this reform simply believe there aren't enough Republicans in Sacramento. If that's their concern they need to take it up with California voters, who have repeatedly expressed their desire to have more Democrats in office.

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave

---

by: Robert in Monterey @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wow (0.00 / 0)

I knock off a comment in a couple minutes before leaving for the weekend.  I come back, and there's been zero substantive response to the arguments, and a lot of straw men: "CHINA!!! ONE PARTY STATE!  YOU HATE DEMOCRACY!! BOOGA BOOGA!!

But sadly, not even anything resembling an actual structured argument as to why redistricting reform will accomplish anything meaningful (or even be marginally superior to the current situation in reality) or any discussion of the unquestioned assumptions about why the theoretical goals of redistricting reform are the right goals.

Why, it's almost as if people don't really think about this stuff, but just have a kneejerk reaction of  "incumbency BAD!!"

---

by: jsw @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 19:21:23 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

kneejerk responses (0.00 / 0)

JSW: I don't think anyone in this thread has said "you hate democracy". I certainly haven't.

What I have said is that a system in which the incumbents are effectively guaranteed re-election because they have drawn the electoral district boundaries with that goal in mind is undemocratic. You can certainly support the existing system without hating democracy.

not even anything resembling an actual structured argument as to why redistricting reform will accomplish anything meaningful (or even be marginally superior to the current situation in reality)

OK, that's a fair point. I have no reason to believe that as a practical matter, California politics will be any different if the power to redistrict is taken out of the hands of the legislature. I do think that the boundaries drawn by the courts in 1991 were vastly superior to the boundaries drafted in 2001 by the legislature, but (a) that may be coincidence, and (b) it's not clear that legislative politics was significantly different as a result.

My objection to the current system is entirely philosophical: the legislature in 2000 used abused its power to draw district boundaries by creating safe districts for every sitting legislator. That is to say, elections in 2002 and 2004, in particular, were not really about the voters choosing their legislators; it was about the legislators having pre-selected the voters they wanted.

Note that it's not about incumbency per se: I think term limits are a terrible idea which should be abandoned forthwith. It's about who is exercising the power of making choices; in the current system, the boundaries are drawn to restrict voter choice.

discussion of the unquestioned assumptions about why the theoretical goals of redistricting reform are the right goals.

OK, maybe now we can get somewhere. :)

I think the goal of 'competitive districts' is non-sensical and obtainable given current settlement patterns, without districts which do a less good job of representing communities of interest than the current districts do.

I think the goal of having legislative districts which are reasonably compact and adhere to actual social or cultural boundaries is a good one, and that they should be drawn without regard to party registration, by people whose jobs are not dependant upon the boundaries being drawn in ways favorable to them.

Do you believe this goal is inappropriate? If so, why?

---

by: aphrael @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 14:54:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

First (0.00 / 0)

please reread smoker1's comments and get back to me about the kneejerkiness of some of the reactions.

I'll spot you your goal:  reasonably compact districts that adhere to actual social or cultural (or prexisting political) boundaries.  Now, how far are we from that today?  And what would be used as a tiebreaker?  And, again, how would that affect the REAL WORLD?  Remember, we have to fit a certain number of people into each district who don't live or form communities of interest in nice compact little grid patterns, and we're already constrained legal regimes, like the voting rights laws which affect the ability to draw districts when traditionally disenfranchised minorities are involved.

I really think that the thing to which you have a philosophical objection is a trivial problem, and focusing energy on the trivial as opposed to the susbstantial is a large part of what I'm objecting to.  There are lots of imperfections in various systems to which I have objections, but the reality is that a lot of those imperfections don't have substantive effects on outcomes.  The current districting mechanism in California is one of those minor imperfections, but the people who are trying to sell a fix can't admit that, because otherwise, why would we bother with all of this BS and taxpayer expense over a trivial problem?

And of course, because it's ersatz reform, not real reform, and it will probably benefit the Republicans (who have made themselves into a minority party here) you can always gin up support from the good government groups, the Broderists, and the Republicans.  Just because it might be achievable doesn't mean it's a solution to anything.  The constant attempts at redistricting reform are a waste of time, money and attention, which should be spent on actually working toward fixing the big brokenness that is the 2/3 requirement and the legalized bribery of the campaign finance system.

---

by: jsw @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 16:14:31 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

of course not (0.00 / 0)

Of course I don't believe that Democrats only have a majority due to redistricting. That would be an absurd claim to make.

What I am claiming is that the way the lines were drawn in 2001 was a bipartisan agreement to ensure that every sitting legislator except one had a safe seat and could survive both a primary and a general election challenge, and that regardless of the party ID attached to the legislators in question, doing so was undemocratic.

---

by: aphrael @ Mon Jun 30, 2008 at 14:45:36 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Two conflicting goals (8.00 / 1)

I haven't looked at the text of proposition 11, but the last time we discussed this, it was clear the pro-redistricting-reform forces had two goals which were irredeemably in conflict:

(a) they want to increase the number of 'competitive' districts.

(b) they want districts to be drawn in geographically compact ways which, as much as possible, either preserve existing city/county boundaries or conform to geographic boundaries.

These goals don't align. Because of the way the state's population has sorted itself, there's no way to draw competitive districts which are geographically compact (outside of a few limited areas). The bay area's districts will not be competitive unless they're drawn in such a way as to merge them with chunks of the central valley, for example.

I'm in favor of districting reform which creates geographically compact districts; I think that lends itself to a closer connection between politicians and their constitutents. And I dislike on principle the way that the legislature currently draws districts so as to ensure safe seats for itself: it's wildly undemocratic.

But aiming for 'competitive districts' in a state whose population has largely segregated itself politically is just as bad.

---

by: aphrael @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 15:04:31 PM CDT

the problem is (0.00 / 0)

population isn't always geographically distributed in a compact manner. lois capps' district on the central coast and mike thompson's district along the north coast actually follow the north-south highway-oriented way that those regions have developed. cutting them crosswise to look neater on a map and lumping people on opposite sides of a mountain range together for aesthetic reasons isn't logical in any sense.

the easier way to have closer contact between politicians and constituents is to increase the numbers of seats in government, so as to shrink the average district. in the CA state senate, this would be a great idea, as they're even bigger districts than congressional ones.  

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

---

by: wu ming @ Sat Jun 28, 2008 at 16:59:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I would support that reform. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: aphrael @ Sun Jun 29, 2008 at 11:24:20 AM CDT

[ Parent ]