California Props 20, 27, and 19

[letterwriter]

The Democratic Party is urging no on 20 and yest on 27. I don't agree.

Prop 20 expands a non-partisan panel to draw districts for congress like it does for state boundaries. 27 repeals having the non-partisan panel do state boundaries.

The issue for me is - the voters should choose the elected officials - not the elected officials choosing the voters.

The Democrats support it because they have a majority and can manipulate the districts to protect themselves. Much the way the Republicans did in Texas that we so much didn't like. the Democrat position is short sighted because if the Republicans ever got a majority they would have the advantage.

So - it is tempting to vote the wrong way to give the Dems an advantage. But it's still wrong. And I really don't think the Democrats would be hurt that much from fair redistricting.

Having said that - if you support prop 19 to legalize pot then the Democrats would get back any advantage they lost in voting for non-partisan redistricting. Once you've smoked pot you are NOT going to vote for Republicans. My point is that a Yes vote on 19 would more than make up for Yes on 20 and No on 27.

In summary,

19 YES
20 Yes
27 No

[Fumesucker]

1. "Once you've smoked pot you are going to vote for Republicans."

:wtf:

[letterwriter]

7. Sorry - TYPO Corrected

Once you've smoked pot you are NOT going to vote for Republicans.

[demwing]

2. "Once you've smoked pot you are going to vote for Republicans" ???

Not?

[DFab420]

3. Once you smoke pot you vote republican?

What is that?

However my main concern for a 14-member non-elected panel, is who decides who is on that panel? How do they make their redistricting decisions?

Proposition 20 mandates that all districts (including Assembly, Senate, and Congress) must be segregated by income level and mandates that all districts be segregated according to 'similar living standards' and that districts include only people 'with similar work opportunities.'"

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/20-arg-rebuttals.pdf

Right now redistricting is done along the lines of the Census, and done by the state legislature, which are elected official, I'm not sure I want my districts being drawn by people I elect. Not by people chosen by the Minority and Majority leaders of the State Senate. Don't be tricked, there is not "election" for these people, just a application process overseen by the State Auditor.

[pinto]

4. FYI - Published Pro / Con arguments via CA Sec. of State Official Voter Information Guide -

Prop 20 -

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/20/arguments-rebuttals.htm

Prop 27 -

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/27/arguments-rebuttals.htm

Prop 19 -

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/19/arguments-rebuttals.htm

[arcane1]

5. I can't make any sense of your last paragraph...

Voting yes on 19 gives the Dems an advantage, but results in people voting for Repubs? :shrug:

[DFab420]

6. I doubt very much

you will get a response from this fella...

Seems like a classic hit and run..

[bemildred]

8. The issue with redistricting is not partisan advantage, it's gerrymandering of safe seats.

Those safe seats can be Democratic or Republican, the problem is that leaves legislators without any need to pay much attention to their constituents.

I am not suggesting that what the Republicans did in Texas is not a problem, but the problem of safe seats precedes the problem of Republicans trying to engineer permanent control of legislatures. In fact engineering permanent control of a legislature must be predicated on the ability to engineer safe seats.

So, I agree with your choices, but not entirely for the same reasons.

[Xithras]

9. Generally, BOTH parties oppose losing districting control.

There are few in government who will give up power willingly, especially when the "power" in question is the ability to define the borders that keep you in power in the first place.

I live in a "safe" Republican congressional district. Those SHOULD NOT exist.

[letterwriter]

10. Safe Districts for Incumbents

Voting yes on 20 and no on 27 keeps "safe" districts from being created by taking the decisions away from the politicians. The voters should choose the politicians but they have been choosing the voters.

[Frances]

11. If you don't like your rep, you can vote against him/her

If you don't like the board members, you have no power to remove the board member.

It's that simple to me. So I'm not voting for a board.

[letterwriter]

12. yes - but ...

If you are jerrymandered into a district that is made to be republican safe then your vote doesn't count.

[Frances]

13. I know it's an uphill battle to convert Repubs, but

theoretically at least you could try. But you have 0 chance of holding a board member responsible.

[mitchtv]

14. no way

yes on 19 of course but Arnold's plan gives an advantage to repubs that they didn't earn; they are not equal to Dems here so NO on 20 YES on27

[LaPera]

16. Exactly - NO on 20! YES on 27!

[JI7]

15. you are a troll

[Sirveri]

17. Who chooses the vote redistricting panel?

We choose the reps, they vote to redistrict to us.

You are advocating a system where we don't choose the reps, and they redistrict us however the heck they feel like it.

[slackmaster]

18. Here is an explanation

http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/11/

[Throd]

19. I am happy that 20 passed and 27 failed

Though the "non-partisan" panel is not the perfect remedy for the situation, it sure all hell beats the status quo.

I wish 19 has passed. Some day it will.

[bemildred]

20. Yeah, it's going to be interesting to see how that works out.

To see what the new commission comes up with. The same can be said of Florida.

I rather doubt that we are done with the question though. Neither party is likely to let it go.