Posted on 11/26/2006 10:00:48 AM PST by NormsRevenge
One hundred seats in the California Assembly and Senate were up for grabs on Nov. 7.
Not a single one changed party hands. Conceivably, you might think, there'd be one seat that would switch from a Democrat to a Republican, or visa versa. But no. Nada. Not a single seat.
The same inertia was seen in the 2004 elections. No seats changed party hands.
Until last week, there was a faint chance that Republican Lynn Dauscher would buck the trend and defeat Democrat Lou Correa in the 34th Senate District, a seat vacated by a termed-out Democrat. But Correa's lead widened to 1,300 votes, and so Dauscher conceded last Monday.
It's a numbers racket in Sacramento, and for years the numbers haven't changed. Democrats control the Senate 25-15 and the Assembly 48-32. It's been that way since 2002, after party leaders sat down and carved up political districts like a bunch of Chicago mobsters. Republicans were willing to lock in their legislative minority status if they could be assured safe seats in Congress. Democrats were willing to forgo chances to win back a bunch of congressional seats -- as they could have done this year.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
Without gerrymandering, the California GOP may well have experienced the same type of wipeout this year as the GOP in New York state experienced.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
Yes, but it might reduce the kook quotient in the legislature, as more "moderate" seats are created.
perhaps a 50% + 1 to win a primary could help deal with the kook issue. A mainstream conservative could still win a GOP-leaning district primary, but a crazy couldn't slip in with 26% of the vote.
How about just creating districts on a county by county basis instead of a bunch of multicounty hybrids?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
I agree actually, although getting rid of state constitutions (except for structural issues), appeals to me more. All they do is empower state Supreme Courts to go rogue.
Look what gerrymandering has gotten us: The Democrats have a very nearly two-thirds super-majority in the legislature. And, worse of all, the Democrats in the legislature are extremists and obstructionists who refuse to address things like prison overcrowding, attempts to fiercely protect pedophiles and worse.
People complain about Arnold, sure, but Angelides was the other choice. And if it comes between Arnold and Boxer in 2010, who would you rather have in the U.S. Senate between them? I'd rather have Arnold.
I'm finding a lot of cowardice here. People scream that a "real conservative" would win and yet are afraid of an opportunity to put those conservative candidates to the test before the voters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.