Saturday, July 10, 2010
The Impatience of Voters
There are some gifts that should be used sparingly. I am thinking of the gift of direct democracy, the initiative, referendum, and recall that were introduced into the governance of California in the days of Hiram Johnson. These were and are still precious gifts. However, we do not use them sparingly or wisely.
As an example, there will be two initiative propositions on the ballot in November, both dealing with the plan to have legislative districts of Assembly and Senate members and the Board of Equalization drawn by a redistricting commission rather than the Legislature. One, proposition 20, would add the Congressional districts to the process. The other, proposition 27, would completely eliminate the redistricting commission and return the task to the Legislature. These are both on the ballot in November even before the redistricting commission has done its first redistricting. Why eliminate it before we even know how it will work? Why add to it before we even know how it will work? Why not wait until after the present redistricting has been done? If it's a bad job, we can then change the process, abolish the badly drawn districts, and return the job to the Legislature. If it's a good job, then we will be able to add the Congressional districts to the mix.
Americans have always had a tendency to solve a serious problem by passing a law. Do poor people who beg for their livings bother you? Pass a law against begging. Do people who have to sleep in the street bother you? Pass a law against sleeping in the street. Do Mexican workers who lack valid visas annoy you? Pass a law against them. Passing a law to "solve" a problem is easier and cheaper than implementing a program that will address the causes. The program will cost money (i.e., more taxes) and nobody wants that. Or, the program will involve diplomacy and assistance to Mexico to help solve its unemployment problem. We Americans are too impatient to practice diplomacy and too stingy to spend money to improve Mexico's economy.
My thought for the day. Good Night!
As an example, there will be two initiative propositions on the ballot in November, both dealing with the plan to have legislative districts of Assembly and Senate members and the Board of Equalization drawn by a redistricting commission rather than the Legislature. One, proposition 20, would add the Congressional districts to the process. The other, proposition 27, would completely eliminate the redistricting commission and return the task to the Legislature. These are both on the ballot in November even before the redistricting commission has done its first redistricting. Why eliminate it before we even know how it will work? Why add to it before we even know how it will work? Why not wait until after the present redistricting has been done? If it's a bad job, we can then change the process, abolish the badly drawn districts, and return the job to the Legislature. If it's a good job, then we will be able to add the Congressional districts to the mix.
Americans have always had a tendency to solve a serious problem by passing a law. Do poor people who beg for their livings bother you? Pass a law against begging. Do people who have to sleep in the street bother you? Pass a law against sleeping in the street. Do Mexican workers who lack valid visas annoy you? Pass a law against them. Passing a law to "solve" a problem is easier and cheaper than implementing a program that will address the causes. The program will cost money (i.e., more taxes) and nobody wants that. Or, the program will involve diplomacy and assistance to Mexico to help solve its unemployment problem. We Americans are too impatient to practice diplomacy and too stingy to spend money to improve Mexico's economy.
My thought for the day. Good Night!
Labels: direct democracy, immigration, poverty, Redistricting
Thursday, October 30, 2008
My View about Prop. 11
In California Proposition 11 is about the process of redrawing election district lines after a decennial census. At present the task of redrawing these lines is given to the State Legislature. Proposition 11 would establish an independent commission to redraw the boundary lines for State Senate, State Assembly, and State Board of Equalization districts. Boundaries of congressional districts would be drawn by the legislature.
In general, I think it is a good idea not to let incumbent office holders define the district boundaries in which they will compete for reelection. The present system of letting the legislature draw the boundary lines results in a set of safe districts. There are certain districts with big Republican majorities; others have big Democratic majorities. Most incumbents are reelected until they are termed out.
Our Governor is plagued with a legislature that seems unable to agree on a budget for the State. At least, it takes way too long to achieve an agreement. The result is a budget that satisfies the Republican desire to avoid increasing taxes, satisfies the Democratic desire to avoid eliminating or reducing the fiancial support of education and health care, covers the difference between revenue and expenses with a temporary loan, and postpones the basic problem of an unbalance between revenue and expenses for another year. The Governor's diagnosis is that members of both Parties take extreme ideological stands rather than show a desire to compromise in the interest of good government. His solution is to change the way legislative districts are drawn so that districts will be more competitive than they are at present. With more competitive districts, he argues, the successful candidates will be the ones that attract votes from members of both Parties and from non-partisan voters. That is, the successful candidates will be Democrats who have obtained some Republican and non-partisan votes and Republicans who have obtained some Democratic and non-partisan votes in their districts.
I agree with the Governor's diagnosis. Both Party representatives in the Legislature tend to be ideological rather than pragmatic. I don't think that changing the way districts are drawn will change that situation. The reason is that candidates for partisan office are selected at primary elections. The voters in primary elections are dedicated Party members. They are the ones who choose the candidates and they tend to choose candidates who are ideological rather than pragmatic. No matter how the district boundaries are drawn, the candidates selected in the primary elections will tend to be ideologues rather than pragmatists.
Anyway, that is my reason for voting NO on Proposition 11. I think it's the wrong cure for a serious problem.
In a subsequent post I will put forth some of my ideas and opinions about how the problem might be solved.
In general, I think it is a good idea not to let incumbent office holders define the district boundaries in which they will compete for reelection. The present system of letting the legislature draw the boundary lines results in a set of safe districts. There are certain districts with big Republican majorities; others have big Democratic majorities. Most incumbents are reelected until they are termed out.
Our Governor is plagued with a legislature that seems unable to agree on a budget for the State. At least, it takes way too long to achieve an agreement. The result is a budget that satisfies the Republican desire to avoid increasing taxes, satisfies the Democratic desire to avoid eliminating or reducing the fiancial support of education and health care, covers the difference between revenue and expenses with a temporary loan, and postpones the basic problem of an unbalance between revenue and expenses for another year. The Governor's diagnosis is that members of both Parties take extreme ideological stands rather than show a desire to compromise in the interest of good government. His solution is to change the way legislative districts are drawn so that districts will be more competitive than they are at present. With more competitive districts, he argues, the successful candidates will be the ones that attract votes from members of both Parties and from non-partisan voters. That is, the successful candidates will be Democrats who have obtained some Republican and non-partisan votes and Republicans who have obtained some Democratic and non-partisan votes in their districts.
I agree with the Governor's diagnosis. Both Party representatives in the Legislature tend to be ideological rather than pragmatic. I don't think that changing the way districts are drawn will change that situation. The reason is that candidates for partisan office are selected at primary elections. The voters in primary elections are dedicated Party members. They are the ones who choose the candidates and they tend to choose candidates who are ideological rather than pragmatic. No matter how the district boundaries are drawn, the candidates selected in the primary elections will tend to be ideologues rather than pragmatists.
Anyway, that is my reason for voting NO on Proposition 11. I think it's the wrong cure for a serious problem.
In a subsequent post I will put forth some of my ideas and opinions about how the problem might be solved.
Labels: Prop. 11, Redistricting
