77: I thought my comments made it clear that I didn't believe that partisanship was your only reason for rejecting 77 (in that I quoted you as giving one other specific reason, and mentioned others that you'd brought up); if I gave another impression, that certainly wasn't my intention. I definitely recognize that there are some structural issues with the proposal, and I must admit that I hadn't realized that if a redistricting measure is rejected by referendum that it will remain in force until another proposal is accepted. This is very bad in that it sounds like a good way to get gerrymandering passed via voter fatigue.
In any case, however, I am uncomfortable with the implied statement: we think that the agenda of the Republicans is Bad, so we are going to maintain an artificially created situation in which our Republican neighbors' representation is proportionally less than it "should" be based on the fraction of the population that they represent. I happen to agree that generally speaking the Congressional Republicans have been doing terrible things. But a question worth asking is whether they would be doing the same terrible things if they really thought that there was a significant chance that it would get them dumped out of office. Regardless, though, I believe that if you want to maintain (or increase) California's D/R rep ratio, the ethical path is to make sure that Democrats are elected fairly, not to rig things so that the status quo is stable.
As for ballots: I may continue to vote absentee, I haven't decided. I've been doing it on a per-election basis so far. Your point about the optical-scan ballots is well taken, though.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: not much to say
Date: 11 November 2005 15:25 (UTC)In any case, however, I am uncomfortable with the implied statement: we think that the agenda of the Republicans is Bad, so we are going to maintain an artificially created situation in which our Republican neighbors' representation is proportionally less than it "should" be based on the fraction of the population that they represent. I happen to agree that generally speaking the Congressional Republicans have been doing terrible things. But a question worth asking is whether they would be doing the same terrible things if they really thought that there was a significant chance that it would get them dumped out of office. Regardless, though, I believe that if you want to maintain (or increase) California's D/R rep ratio, the ethical path is to make sure that Democrats are elected fairly, not to rig things so that the status quo is stable.
As for ballots: I may continue to vote absentee, I haven't decided. I've been doing it on a per-election basis so far. Your point about the optical-scan ballots is well taken, though.