Burnt Orange ReportNews, Politics, and Fun From Deep in the Heart of Texas |
![]() |
January 13, 2005Don't Cry For Me CaliforniaBy Jim DallasPandagon's Ezra Klein says California shouldn't adopt common-sense redistricting reforms because it would be tantamount to "unilateral disarmament:"
California's Democrats have a slight advantage under the current district (32 of the 52 districts). Assuming that in a neutral environment, Democrats have a roughly 55-60 percent to 40-45 advantage over Republicans (Kerry won California 54-45, though lost the national election by 3 percentage points; Democratic congressional candidates won 54 percent of the two party vote in 2002, which the Democrats lost nationally by 4 percentage points), completely "fair" redistricting would mean a loss of a couple of seats by Democrats (one lesson of the Texas redistricting debacle is that the statewide DPI/RPI is the definition of "fair"). So, yes, being fair would probably mean a minor victory for DeLay, in the short term. But would that really be so bad? A number of California's House members are dinosaurs or worse. On the Republican side, goober-heads like Bill Thomas, Darrell Issa, etc. could end up vulnerable. On our side, we might finally be able to put some of our most-out-of-touch careerists out to pasture (both of the lame-o centrist variety and the moonbat-left variety). But why should this solely dictate what we as Democrats support? If this reform were adopted nationally, Democrats stand a better shot at taking back Congress. And regardless which party wins, it's a sure bet that the American people will be better served, and that's the bottom line. Americans look to California as a source of progressive reforms, and it's no coincidence that many ideas that start in the Golden State end up going national (sadly, this includes such nonsense as Prop 13 and term limits). I think California should do what California has always done - serve as the gold-standard laboratory of democracy that Texas (usually) is not and cannot be. Coupled with kos's prescription (also made earlier by Kuff) for Congressional reapportionment, writing the abolition of gerrymandering into a bill to renew the Voting Rights Act would greatly enhance our nation's democratic experiment. If Californians embrace Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan, it will help to drag the rest of the country along. Posted by Jim Dallas at January 13, 2005 03:10 PM | TrackBackComments
When so called Democrats who want to unilaterally disarm so that THEY can feel virtuous start contributing to anti-Gerrymandering initiate-petitions in Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, I'll start taking them seriously. The Republican party would rape a two year old boy on national television if it picked up a few seats, and somehow you seem to think that this will "shame" them into going along. They have no shame, and I'm not playing touch when the bad guys are carrying RPG-7s. It's not about being better. It's about preventing the very real, and PERMANENT damage that these folks are doing to our nation. Posted by: Matthew Saroff at January 13, 2005 04:29 PMLet Texas reform first and Florida second. Posted by: Tim Z. at January 13, 2005 07:40 PMAs they say in fashion, trends always start in California. I don't know of many Republicans that can win a 50-50 district anyway. We may lose a couple seats, but it may produce shockwaves in other states like Florida, Illinois, Ohio. Posted by: pc at January 13, 2005 09:57 PMI'm just going to throw this out there, but it seems silly to worry about how we might weaken ourselves with this. It's a little bit like the kid who's gunshy after getting hit by his big brother too many times. Look, we're already a minority party. We just lost a presidential election. The Republicans don't even consult us in conference committees when they are rewriting legislation in Congress. Being scared of losing more seats is ridiculous. We're already at the bottom, now's the time when we can literally come up with any bold new idea without any fear. The worst they can do right now is show us videotape of Bush's acceptance speech. Now's the time to just say whatever is on our collective minds and be vociferous in our beliefs as a party. Have the balls to back up our convictions, whatever they may be and people will respond. It may take time, but that's OK. We've got plenty of it on our hands. That's just one person's opinion. Posted by: Nate at January 13, 2005 10:51 PMHey Nate, could get a lot worse. Remember 1965? You want to get that far down the food chain? Keep it up. Posted by: peter at January 14, 2005 12:18 AMPost a comment
|
|