Is that Carly and Meg to the right of Duke?
Posted on 10/30/2008 12:31:07 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger teams up with former business partner (in Planet Hollywood) and actor Sylvester Stallone for a fundraiser tonight in La Jolla.
The money goes toward passing Proposition 11, the redistricting measure on the Nov. 4 ballot.
--snip--
Chairs of the events (those who give $25,000) get two seats at the head table, 10 dinner tickets and two photos each for two people with Schwarzenegger and Stallone.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
I’m not familiar with prop 11. Is this good or bad?
You’ll have to read the fine print to see who it is that will be defining the new districts. If it is a Democrat or Democrat appointee, it will probably make things worse.
I’m pinging CalCowGirl. She is usually very insightful on these matters.
I’m voting NO, but I think I’m in the minority.
FWIW, it’s not as awful as some of the other ones that I have tried to expose.
Here are some prior posts from newzjunkey, amerigomag, and me.
Helps moderates (hurts conservatives):
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2107138/posts?page=8#8
Lefties supporting the measure:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2107138/posts?page=6#6
manipulated, convoluted:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2107334/posts?page=26#26
Doesn’t include Congressional districts—Lefty districts get more protection through Voters Rights Act and “communities of interest”:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110868/posts?page=31#31
Moves process further from the public eye by giving to specially selected (unelected) group:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2110868/posts?page=53#53
Bill Lockyer just jumped on the bandwagon of supporters today.
Thanks. I was afraid of that.
In truth it would be nice if our districts were revised to allow for a more fair representation. In this climate, that’s a near impossibility.
If the initiative had merit, Schwarzenegger wouldn’t be for it. That should have been my first tip-off.
Prop 11 is a redistricting measure, a Constitutional Amendment. It takes the responsibility for drawing district lines away from the legislature and gives it to a commission. It affects only State districts (State Senate, Assembly, and BOE)--NOT Congressional districts.
While this proposition may make things slightly better, I think it takes away the chance that a good measure will pass anywhere in the near future. The problem is not WHO draws district lines, imo, but HOW they draw them. This prop doesn't do anything to firm up the how side of the equation... it deals strictly with who draws them. One could argue that it actually gives more protection to lefty groups by expressly recognizing in the Constitution such things as "communities of interest" in drawing districts. Also, the same legislature that they are trying to eject from the process is very much involved in the selection of the proposed commission. Until such time as districts are drawn in accordance with strict criteria (e.g. using mathematical models based on population and geography with no preference to culture, ideology, etc), I don't see much benefit in redistricting changes, especially when they move them farther from the public eye. I'd prefer that folks be accountable to the people and be subject to removal if they do not act accordingly.
What’s Prop 11, some kind of funding to remediate speech pathologies?
There is a mixed bag of supporters. On the Pro-side, they have some support from the ACLU, Common Cause, and other lefty groups. But then again, they have Coupal and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc, also. Arnie and Lockyer are on the pro-side—but so is McClintock.
Likewise, on the NO-on-11 side, you have a bunch of Democratic clubs opposing it and a host of non-partisan folks. The CA GOP has “no position” on the measure.
This thread had some good comments, and prior threads keyworded as “Prop 11”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2114497/posts?page=22#22
Thanks for the additional thoughts. Your logic sounds reasoned to me here. The how not who, was in particular a good point IMO.
Bill and his MALDEF wife.. ggeeesshhh
2010 is gonna be a real hoot, huh,, a bunch of old dems running for Gub...
I generally tend to vote down initiatives where there are no clear lines being drawn, pardon the pun. If this is a mixed bag, and the support seems to indicate that, then I’m going to have to take a pass. Your initial comments made sense, and seeing this doesn’t convince me to alter my thoughts.
This race has the Bloomberg/Buffett types against the SEIU/LaRaza types.
Either way, ordinary voters are screwed, IMO.
As good a reason as any to vote against it.
--
No comment.. (Do I have to send the box of cigars back? (I wanted beer.))
AARP is supporting it too. Is that Stelllla in the distance I hear warbling 8-?
As an ordinary voter, I take offense to that. ;-)
Ged ouda here... ;-)
Well, if the AARP is for it, that seals it. no sale
This race has the Bloomberg/Buffett types against the SEIU/LaRaza types.
—
The Fatcats v. Thugs&Racists ,, Oh joy.
Yes, just what we need ‘the people’ teaming up with ‘THE PEOPLE’.
I guess that leaves us white middle class folks out.
Two power groups fighting for control of the process.
Neither give a darn about what the voters think.
They both know what is best for all of us peasants.
LOL! Me too!
I’m voting no because I do not want the legislature to hand off their constitutional responsibility to a committee. We have too much of that at all levels of government.
But as for the redistricting itself, I’d rather a computer generate random lines every 4 years on a map.
I can agree with that on both counts. I’m going to have to sit down in a day or so and read the small print on all these initiatives. If I were reading the Prop 11 data, your count one would have been a red flag to me as well.
That is in the eye of the beholder.
It is good if you mean that the process is at slightly greater arms length from its intended recipient. The term better might be more appropriate if, in your midset, Barry Obama is better than Hugo Chavez.
It is bad if you mean it subdivides the electorate in similarly sized groups without respect to community, culture or race. It is bad if you understand that it's passage will be used as a excuse to preclude effort to promulgate anything less republican. The effacing term "best we can expect" might be more appropriate if you are a pragmatic partisan.
Voting “No” as well.
Already voted NO on Prop. 11. For me, it was a close call; however, after seeing this Austrian and Rambo endorsement, I feel much better about my choice. And I like Rambo...
I’m not a Rambo fan but I loved Rocky — the first one, anyway (after that, they got tiresome).
Is that Carly and Meg to the right of Duke?
I don’t think so ,, where’s rosario?
So ya voted yet?
We got blank ballots but not for long..
I’m leaning 4 Yes’s down from 5 almost 6
ROFL!
So ya voted yet?
Nope. I like the tradition of voting on Tuesday. I'll wait until then.
I’m leaning 4 Yes’s down from 5 almost 6
I'm still at three yeses--4, 8, and 12. What's your current list look like?
4 8 12 and either 6 or 9 maybe.. or not. :-)
Here's two obvious reforms California should make their election structures, which unfortunately will never be even considered for the foreseeable future:
1) State Judges should be ELECTED completely by the voters, with the governor and the legislature having almost no say in the matter. Currently, only 7 states choose their judges by "partisan, contested elections" and the system works great from what I've seen. Illinois is one of them. Right now, the Illinois Supreme Court is the most conservative branch of government -- the Dems hold a narrow 1 seat majority (4 Dems, 3 GOP) but the three Republicans are all good, reliable, staunch conservatives. (If they ever went wobbly and started acting like RINOs, they'd lose the primary next time around). The four Dems are pro-buisness moderates and the lone non-Chicago Dem votes with the Republicans half the time (he needs to do that since he was elected from a majority Republican district) The Governor does have the power to appoint a TEMPORARILY replacement in the event of a sudden death or resignation, but this judge has to stand for election as soon as the next general election rolls around. I shudder to think what kind of corrupt socialist judges George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich would have appointed!
2) The State Senate should be drawn the same way the U.S. Senate is drawn -- to give each AREA of California EQUAL influence in government. Each California county would have a single state senator. Los Angeles County (having the largest population of any county in the U.S.) gets ONE State Senator, and rural Siskiyou gets ONE Senator as well. This would likely result in a GOP majority in the State Senate for the foreseeable future and drive the Dems nuts because their voting base is all in liberal coastal cities. The lower house would continue to be represented on the basis on population, so they can't say it's unfamilar. They'd be a balence between the two houses ... one representing voters on the basis of population and the other representing voters on the basis of region.
When I first looked at that photo I wondered why Grey Davis was standing there. (left side)
LOL!!!
4, 8, 9 and 12 here
Thanks!
You two made me take another look at prop 9 — but I’m stickin’ with my original choices of 4/8/12.
(I must like numbers divisible by 4, or sumthin’, LOL)
FWIW, I don't think most races are lost because a district is "non-competitive" as they claim. Even if it were, the law doesn't allow for any action to make it competitive. Instead, it puts language in the Constitution recognizing the Voting Rights Act and requiring that "communities of interest" be recognized when drawing districts.
Had the GOP actually tried to win some races, and lost because of district gerrymandering, I might change my mind. But most races have been funded with peanuts, favoring the high-profile races like Arnie-for-guv and McCain-for-Prez and leaving all the others to fend on their own. Heck... there are a bunch of districts where there aren't any Republicans even running, leaving the Dems unopposed. The Party needs to get better at recruiting and mentoring talent across the state and quit putting all the focus on these issues. If they put half the energy into local elections as they have into failed ballot measures, we'd have won more seats, IMO.
Since they couldn't pass their crazy proposal last time (that was opposed by about 3/4 of Republican congress-critters, they simply limited this initiative to State offices. So... if passed, we will literally have two separate redistricting efforts performed after the 2010 census, by two separate redistricting bodies. Doncha love the efficiency of government?
Just a friendly gathering of the ruling class of California. Welcome to "post partisanship."
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.