Arnold Schwarzenegger Wrong on Redistricting Proposition

newsmax.com ^ | October 10, 2005 | David Horowitz

[FJR]

David Horowitz has joined the fight against CA Proposition 77, the redistricting initiative, and calls on Republicans to vote NO on Prop 77. This op-ed piece explains the dangers Prop 77 poses to Republicans in CA and how its passage could start a trend that hands the House to the Dems.

[Carry_Okie]

As damning a body of evidence as one could find.

[calcowgirl]

And if you just saw the news today that the California Teachers Association is asking for another $40M from their members and to take out another $35M in debt just to survive the fight with Ahnold to prevent dues money from going into campaigns - then I think the guy deserves at least guarded support.

I support Prop 75 fully. It however has nothing to do with Prop 77. Yes, the current system is bad. But by supporting Prop 77 as you suggest, the GOP will LOSE seats. You see this as an improvement? You want to "level the playing field" and lose the House?

[ModelBreaker]

I have a hard time understanding his reasoning. The only argument he advances that has any substance is the the R legislators oppose it.

But that's not surprising. The way redistricting works (oversimplification alert) is that the majority party (the rats) creates districts that are super republican. That soaks up tons of the republican votes on just one R legislator. Then they create the rest of the districts to favor D's but not by as much. So in a gerrymandered state, the D's will get elected by 60% and the R's by 80%. This results in more D legislators than would happen if the districts were drawn fairly.

So why do R legislators like their districts? Because each of them has a safe district in which that legislator will NEVER lose an election. And they like that.

So that the R legislators don't want to change is not surprising and says nothing about the merits of Prop 77.

OTOH, the 1981 redistricting was done by democrats for the sake of democrats. I have no question but that it squeezed several extra seats out for the D's that they would not get with fairly drawn lines. That's the way gerrymandering works. So if Prop 77 results in fairly drawn lines (a big if), then the R's should pick up some seats.

Horowitz is a smart guy but I think he's way off base on this one.

[tubebender]

Why is McClintock supporting prop 77?

[calcowgirl]

I don't know, other than what he has published: that he thinks it should be taken out of the hands of the legislators. I don't disagree with that part, I just see too many flaws in the proposed solution (per my post on other thread).

Remember, McClintock is running for election next year. Having support of the party will most likely make a difference. Perhaps he is trying to look at the bright side.... and then bite his tongue?

[tubebender]

I cannot live with the current system after what it did to District 1...

[Unam Sanctam]

I would think retired judges would be more neutral than the legislature in redistricting. It seems like a good idea to me.

[GVnana]

Perhaps he is trying to look at the bright side.... and then bite his tongue?

You would ascribe this behavior to McClintock?

[Names Ash Housewares]

Examples of how things are drawn up in California.....Neato huh?

jpg

[goldstategop]

Exactly. I have to disagree with Horowitz - his plea basically amounts to an exercise in INCUMBENT protection. That may keep the existing GOP seats safe but its precisely the opposite of what the party needs to do to expand its strength. As long as the party can only run in safe districts, this will remain a Democratic state in perpetuity - regardless of whether or not Prop. 77 passes in November.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[GVnana]

Such practices only make sense to politicians safeguarding a seat.

I was reluctant to support redistricting. I kept wondering what was to be gained. But after reviewing the gerrymandered districts of CA it became plain to me that those responsible had already violated my trust.

There's nothing wrong with making a politician work for the vote.

[newzjunkey]

David Horowitz is a KOOK.

I'll trust State Senator Tom McClintock's judgment over Horowitz.

CA had a similar redistricting system in place before 2000. Right now we're on the edge of having a Dem supermajority in our legislature.

[newzjunkey]

Remember, McClintock is running for election next year. Having support of the party will most likely make a difference. Perhaps he is trying to look at the bright side.... and then bite his tongue?

You're attacking Tom McClintock's credibility? McClintock?? Wow, you're really stretching to obstruct reform aren't you?

For those who don't trust any random group of unnamed retired judges (due to paranoia), do you not trust the People to 'sign off' on the redistricting plan?

What is your solution? Abandon California? Armed revolt?

[newzjunkey]

Exactly. And all the while they inhabit radically safe disticts, they can go about collecting obscene levels of contributions from special interests. All these contributions they'll never ever need to actually wage a campaign. Payoffs, in other words.

I don't care if the GOP loses some seats in the short term if the outcome are fairly drawn, competative districts which can only benefit the state overall by making it difficult for union machines and other corrupt special interests (i.e. Reconquistas) to buy off the People's representantives.

Remind me again what we've gained in having a "united" Republican government in D.C.?

A person worried over their reelection chances will be more responsive.

[calcowgirl]

You're attacking Tom McClintock's credibility?

No, I'm not attacking McClintock's credibility. I was trying to respond to the question asked of me. IMO, his support for this measure appears lukewarm, compared to many of the passionate stances he has taken in the past.

For those who don't trust any random group of unnamed retired judges (due to paranoia).

Paranoia has nothing to do with it. If there were only one or two things wrong with proposition 77, I might consider voting for it. As it is, I will vote NO. For some of the reasons, see this post (that is, if you're at all interested in actually discussing the measure instead of just attacking me for not jumping in your Party line.)

[goldstategop]

Yes... and to my way of thinking, if we can't go out and win open seats with good candidates, we'll lose control of Congress sooner or later. And even Horowitz admits California is if anything, getting even more Blue with the passage of time. We can either continue taking the scraps off the Democrats' table or we can fight for a Republican majority. The easier path of keeping the status quo may make sense in the short term but in the long term its a prescription for political suicide. We've got to expand the GOP not just keep what we have now.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[scratcher]

Tom McClintock is for it and he is certainly not a RHINO

Tom McClintock on the Propositions
I've been getting calls about the various ballot propositions for the Special Election.

Here's how I see them:

Proposition 73: Parental Notification for Abortion. If parental consent is required for a child to use a tanning booth or get her ears pierced, shouldn’t parents at least be notified if she’s getting an abortion? YES. Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, this should be the all-time no-brainer.

Proposition 74: Teacher Tenure. Do parents have a right to expect a higher level of competence before a teacher is granted life-time tenure? YES. This modest measure simply increases the teacher probation period from two years to five years.

Proposition 75: Public Employee Union Dues. Should public employees decide for themselves which candidates they will support with their own money? YES. This measure requires that before a public employee union can take money from that employee for political donations, it has to get the employee’s permission.

Proposition 76: State Spending. Should government live within its means? YES. This measure restores the authority that the governor of California had between 1939 and 1983 to make mid-year spending cuts whenever spending outpaces revenue without having to return to the legislature.

Proposition 77: Re-districting. Should voters choose their representatives in legislative districts that are drawn without regard to partisan advantage? YES. The most obvious conflict of interest in government is when politicians choose which voters will get to vote for them by drawing their own legislative district lines. This measure puts a stop to it.

Propositions 78 and 79: Prescription drug discounts. Do you want the same people who run the DMV to run your pharmacy? NO. These are rival measures, one supported by drug companies and the other by liberal activists – both of which purport to lower drug prices. What they really do is assure that one group of patients gets to pay higher prices to provide subsidized prices for others. There’s no such thing as a free Levitra.

Proposition 80. Electricity Regulation. Do you want the same people who run the DMV to run your electricity company? NO. This measure locks in monopoly control of your electricity by the bureaucratized utilities and forbids you from ever being able to shop around for the lowest-priced electricity available.

http://www.tommcclintock.net/iblog.htm

[calcowgirl]

Horowitz is a kook? What exactly did he write that you disagreed with?

Is McCain more your kind of guy? He fully supports this, saying "We need the voice of moderation."

CA: Schwarzenegger enlists McCain to help ailing initiatives campaign
Posted by NormsRevenge
On 10/10/2005 3:44:07 PM PDT • 21 replies • 225+ views

[calcowgirl]

And I didn't say he was. I was speaking of McCain. Read my post again.

[calcowgirl]

Oh... by the way, belated welcome to Free Republic.

Also, I maintain the McClintock ping list, so I'm quite familiar with his positions.