California: Proposition 20 vs Proposition 27 - General

Propositions 20 and 27! Which one do you vote for? Do you vote for both? Neither? According to my voter information guide, Proposition 20 and Proposition 27 are rival pieces of legislation. Both claim to be anti-gerrymandering propositions. Proponents of each claim the other one is a trick, designed by the corrupt politicians and their friends to sabotage redistricting reform. Both propositions have a "poison pill" provision, meaning that if both receive a majority Yes vote, the one with a higher majority will be the only one that is enacted. [b]Proposition 20[/b] Proposition 20 does this: [quote=Wikipedia] * Add the task of re-drawing congressional district boundaries to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission commission created by Proposition 11. * Define a "community of interest" as "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process."[/quote] As near as I can tell, Prop 20 looks to be the more legitimate of the two. Dozens of local newspapers have editorialized in favor of it (Wikipedia only cites one, the Sacramento Bee, as taking the opposite position), the NAACP backs it, and as a bleeding-heart liberal I'm naturally distrustful of any argument that focuses on "taxpayer dollars." [quote=California Voter Guide]DON’T BE FOOLED—NO ON PROPOSITION 20—IT WASTES TAXPAYER DOLLARS Perhaps Charles Munger, Junior, the sole bankroller of Prop. 20, has fooled well-meaning David Pacheco, Kathay Feng, and John Kabateck. But don’t let him fool you. Prop. 20 guarantees no level of fairness, guarantees no competitive districts, guarantees nothing—except that voters cannot hold those who draw congressional district lines accountable for what they do AND THAT YOU, THE TAXPAYER, WILL FOOT THE BILL FOR MUNGER’S SCHEME.[/quote] [quote=Wikipedia]Supporters of Proposition 20 include: * California Chamber of Commerce * California State Conference of the NAACP * AARP * California Common Cause * Bay Area Council * Arnold Schwarzenegger and Gray Davis[/quote] A big point raised here is that Prop 20 is funded in large part by Charles Munger, Jr., son of wealthy Republican philanthropist Charles Munger. Accusations of "rich people hijacking our democracy" etc. [b]Proposition 27[/b] Proposition 27 does this: [quote]If approved, this measure will repeal California Proposition 11 (2008), which authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. It would also modify the provision in California law that says that proposed congressional districts can't be subjected to a veto referendum.[3][/quote] Prop 27 has lots of donors, and most of them are politicians (including my local representative, Sam Farr): [quote=Wikipedia]13 of the Democratic incumbent donors gave $10,000. 3 gave $5,000 (Lee, Richardson, Woolsey). One gave $25,000 (Linda Sanchez). One gave a total of $135,000 (Judy Chu). 11 of the Democratic incumbent donors are also current or former members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, including Congress Members George Miller, Nancy Pelosi, Judy Chu, Sam Farr, Mike Honda, Barbara Lee, Laura Richardson, Lucille Roybal-Allard, Linda Sanchez, Diane Watson, and Lynn Woolsey. The Congressional Progressive Caucus is said to represent the Left-wing of the Democratic Party. Members of the California State Legislature who are donors: Through September 22, eight members of the California State Legislature, all of whom are members of the Democratic Party, have donated money to the Proposition 27 campaign, either personally, through their state senate or state assembly campaign committee, or through a ballot measure campaign committee set up under their auspices with their name on it.[/quote] [quote=Wikipedia]According to political journalist Shane Goldmacher, Democratic political strategists say that this initiative can be seen as a political tactic to defeat Proposition 20, the Congressional Redistricting Initiative, which is on the November 2, 2010 ballot: "Democratic political strategists say the best way to ensure a 'no' vote this fall on California Proposition 20 is to confuse the public further with a second ballot measure on the already head spinning topic of political line drawing."[/quote] Another thing to be said for 27 is that the Chairman of the Sierra Club supports it. I'm not sure what the Sierra Club has to do with gerrymandering, but there it is. Update, from SA D&D: [quote]Let me explain it to you: California's districting has been drawn so that there's basically at most one seat up for grabs. The Democrats will always have a simple majority, but not 2/3rds required to raise taxes by prop 13. The Republicans will always be the minority party, but with enough seats to obstruct any tax increases without actually being in charge. Democrats would rather just keep playing shell games with the budget instead of increase a tax, since they can just point the fingers at Republicans for it. Republicans can refuse to pass state budgets until spending is cut and axe tax increases even though they're the back seat party. And nothing ever gets done. In general, both parties are happy with this. Schwarzenegger, who had been disowned by Republicans and disliked by Democrats, was not. He built a scheme to redistrict the state that finally met voter approval in 2008. District lines would be drawn by a committee of an equal number of Republicans, Democrats, and people of no party (which, given this is California, will probably be progressives who are frustrated with the Democratic party, but anyway...) Prop 20 says these people's lines will also be used to determine the districting for the US House of Representatives. Prop 27 says "hey, fuck it, let's not redistrict, cancel the 2008 result, and keep things going the way they are." The Democrats and Republicans really want this, since they're happy to just keep the same number of seats they have with no real competition. The Democrats can still technically be in charge, the Republicans can still obstruct tax increases and budget proposals, and California can keep kicking the can of it's own demise down the road. I am personally against both 20 and 27. I'd at least like to see the kind of map the committee makes before changing our Washington representatives, and I'm quite happy with my House rep in CA (progressive caucus leader Lynn Woolsey) and her access to wealthy Marin County donors. Anyone who is not an absolute shill for either one of the two parties who stands to gain from the institutionalized corruption in the Capitol, though, needs to vote down 27. Another important prop, just so you know, is 25. This is the one that reduces the budget vote from 2/3rds to 50%+1. Even if redistricting fails and things stay as they are, the Democrats will be able to pass budgets. As things are going right now, Republicans can refuse to play along until either stuff is cut or their pet project is included (or both), and legislators stay up late overnight and eventually the state goes without a budget for a few weeks, or a few months as just happened. This costs the state a lot of money just running without a budget. I don't care what you vote on 20, but please vote yes on 25 and no on 27. Even if 27 wins, a 25 win means the state is still a little un-fucked. But both parties deserve to be fucked equally, which would happen if state capitol legislators have to actually compete for their survival again. [/quote] There's probably all of 5 Cali FPers of voting age, but Post What You Think

Is it just me, or does everyone from Facepunch live in Florida, Canada, the UK, and California? [editline]15th October 2010[/editline] Also, I would be in favor of Prop 20, but I don't live in California

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;25428780]Is it just me, or does everyone from Facepunch live in Florida, Canada, the UK, and California?[/QUOTE] There's a guy from Finland, but he has the strongest Russian accent I have ever heard in my life. Also I agree with the chap above.

Only one sentence in that post actually said something about what these do. [quote] Prop. 20 guarantees no level of fairness, guarantees no competitive districts, guarantees nothing—except that voters cannot hold those who draw [B]congressional district lines[/B] accountable for what they do AND THAT YOU, THE TAXPAYER, WILL FOOT THE BILL FOR MUNGER’S SCHEME. [/quote]:downs: For us that don't understand: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering[/url]

There were a few others: [quote]Both claim to be anti-gerrymandering propositions.[/quote] [quote] * Add the task of re-drawing congressional district boundaries to the California Citizens Redistricting Commission commission created by Proposition 11. * Define a "community of interest" as "a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process."[/quote] [quote]If approved, this measure will repeal California Proposition 11 (2008), which authorized the creation of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission. It would also modify the provision in California law that says that proposed congressional districts can't be subjected to a veto referendum.[3][/quote]

[QUOTE=TH89;25428696]Both claim to be anti-gerrymandering propositions.[/QUOTE] I read that as anti-Garrysmodding propositions

If I could vote, I would choose 20.

The problem with the districts in CA is that they're complete shit in some areas. For example, westchester (A republican community) is blended in with Inglewood (Primarily democrat with a higher population), which causes imbalance of political parties within the communities. I can personally attest to this as my dad who ran for state assembly in westchester, but lost because inglewood was connected. My dad said it was partially true due to him being white and the opposition being black, but I doubt that.

When I read "gerrymandering" AP Gov all came back to me in a Thane-esque flashback I'd vote yes on both just for fun

Prop 20

Some days I really think the US needs a direct democracy. Representative democracy just gives to much opportunity to shit like this.

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;25428780]Is it just me, or does everyone from Facepunch live in Florida, Canada, the UK, New York City, Australia, and California? [editline]15th October 2010[/editline] Also, I would be in favor of Prop 20, but I don't live in California[/QUOTE] Fixed

can you explain them in a language that someone without a phd in politics can understand

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;25428780]Is it just me, or does everyone from Facepunch live in Florida, Canada, the UK, and California? [editline]15th October 2010[/editline] Also, I would be in favor of Prop 20, but I don't live in California[/QUOTE] Don't forget Massachusetts. We invented the term "gerrymandering:" [img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Gerry-Mendering-edit.png[/img] (In 1812, Governor Elbridge Gerry redrew a district in Essex County, Massachusetts that opponents claimed looked like a salamander.)

Go prop 1. Ban alcohol

[QUOTE=Captain Proton;25430643]can you explain them in a language that someone without a phd in politics can understand[/QUOTE] Look at this: [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Gerry-Mendering-edit.png[/IMG] Those are political zones, or whatever they are supposed to be reffered to as. It's about moving political areas/zones/districts in favor of parties so they can get more votes/power/whatever. I haven't really read in on the topic, but it fucks up a lot.

Vote No on both..?

[quote=TH89]"Democratic political strategists say the best way to ensure a 'no' vote this fall on California Proposition 20 is to confuse the public further with a second ballot measure on the already head spinning topic of political line drawing."[/quote] :(

20 is the obvious choice... the only people in support of 27 are the SUPER liberal people like George Soros and Nancy Polosi. Pretty much everyone else (including most democrats) are in support of 20.

[QUOTE=darkrei9n;25430211]Some days I really think the US needs a direct democracy. Representative democracy just gives to much opportunity to shit like this.[/QUOTE] Umm what These are voter submitted. This is California's direct democracy

[QUOTE=zombiefreak;25429851]The problem with the districts in CA is that they're complete shit in some areas. For example, westchester (A republican community) is blended in with Inglewood (Primarily democrat with a higher population), which causes imbalance of political parties within the communities. I can personally attest to this as my dad who ran for state assembly in westchester, but lost because inglewood was connected. My dad said it was partially true due to him being white and the opposition being black, but I doubt that.[/QUOTE] The drawing of political districts has absolutely nothing to do with what party people are in. They are supposed to make the districts all be of a similar urban level/economic position. (IE. urban areas separate from suburbia, etc.) This means that people from completely different areas aren't voting on bills/candidates that may or may not effect them in the same way.

[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy18;25431129]Umm what These are voter submitted. This is California's direct democracy[/QUOTE] gerrymandering was voter submitted?

Where's Prop 19? And wouldn't this be considered gerrymandering?

[QUOTE=MrAfroShark70;25428780]Is it just me, or does everyone from Facepunch live in Florida, Canada, the UK, and California? [editline]15th October 2010[/editline] Also, I would be in favor of Prop 20, but I don't live in California[/QUOTE] Biggest states, and more developed countries...so it makes sense [editline]15th October 2010[/editline] Bay Area council supports prop 20, so I'd vote for that if I could

You should vote for Proposition 19 that's what.

I would if I could, but I can't

Why not?

[QUOTE=CAPSMAN!;25430897]Look at this: [img_thumb]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Gerry-Mendering-edit.png[/img_thumb] Those are political zones, or whatever they are supposed to be reffered to as. It's about moving political areas/zones/districts in favor of parties so they can get more votes/power/whatever. I haven't really read in on the topic, but it fucks up a lot.[/QUOTE] no thats a dragon

[QUOTE=sgman91;25431072]20 is the obvious choice... the only people in support of 27 are the SUPER liberal people like George Soros and Nancy Polosi. Pretty much everyone else (including most democrats) are in support of 20.[/QUOTE] This is completely wrong in so many ways Nancy Pelosi isn't even part of the state legislature she's in the U.S. Congress [editline]16th October 2010[/editline] Anyway I got a good answer from a goon: [quote]Let me explain it to you: California's districting has been drawn so that there's basically at most one seat up for grabs. The Democrats will always have a simple majority, but not 2/3rds required to raise taxes by prop 13. The Republicans will always be the minority party, but with enough seats to obstruct any tax increases without actually being in charge. Democrats would rather just keep playing shell games with the budget instead of increase a tax, since they can just point the fingers at Republicans for it. Republicans can refuse to pass state budgets until spending is cut and axe tax increases even though they're the back seat party. And nothing ever gets done. In general, both parties are happy with this. Schwarzenegger, who had been disowned by Republicans and disliked by Democrats, was not. He built a scheme to redistrict the state that finally met voter approval in 2008. District lines would be drawn by a committee of an equal number of Republicans, Democrats, and people of no party (which, given this is California, will probably be progressives who are frustrated with the Democratic party, but anyway...) [b]Prop 20[/b] says these people's lines will also be used to determine the districting for the US House of Representatives. [b]Prop 27[/b] says "hey, fuck it, let's not redistrict, cancel the 2008 result, and keep things going the way they are." The Democrats and Republicans really want this, since they're happy to just keep the same number of seats they have with no real competition. The Democrats can still technically be in charge, the Republicans can still obstruct tax increases and budget proposals, and California can keep kicking the can of it's own demise down the road. I am personally against both 20 and 27. I'd at least like to see the kind of map the committee makes before changing our Washington representatives, and I'm quite happy with my House rep in CA (progressive caucus leader Lynn Woolsey) and her access to wealthy Marin County donors. Anyone who is not an absolute shill for either one of the two parties who stands to gain from the institutionalized corruption in the Capitol, though, needs to vote down 27. Another important prop, just so you know, is 25. This is the one that reduces the budget vote from 2/3rds to 50%+1. Even if redistricting fails and things stay as they are, the Democrats will be able to pass budgets. As things are going right now, Republicans can refuse to play along until either stuff is cut or their pet project is included (or both), and legislators stay up late overnight and eventually the state goes without a budget for a few weeks, or a few months as just happened. This costs the state a lot of money just running without a budget. I don't care what you vote on 20, but please vote yes on 25 and no on 27. Even if 27 wins, a 25 win means the state is still a little un-fucked. But both parties deserve to be fucked equally, which would happen if state capitol legislators have to actually compete for their survival again. [/quote]

[QUOTE=TH89;25432467]This is completely wrong in so many ways Nancy Pelosi isn't even part of the state legislature she's in the U.S. Congress [editline]16th October 2010[/editline] Anyway I got a good answer from a goon:[/QUOTE] The problem with our current districts is that some of them are seriously flawed. Inglewood and Westchester notably. In Westchester, the average income is like 77k, while Inglewood is full of poor people. Fucking hell if we weren't part of that damn district we wouldn't be in the city of Los Angeles, which is actually ~30 minutes away.