And they are using "by lot" as a means of choosing from WHAT pool? Like I said, the criteria is not mentioned. Statistically speaking, this is not "random" selection. Better? Maybe if you are one of those who would like to toss out the Republican platform and make the party more "moderate". IMO, this measure will "move the party left", just as the Governor has said he wants to do.
What you never say is why you prefer the current approach.
I have posted my preferred approach down on at least 10 occasions, which you have continued to ignore. I won't bother again.
Obviously you'd rather have 65% of the state legislature in Democratic hands, and meanwhile find fault with anything and everything proposed by Tom, Arnold and Ted to start fixing the problem (even if it's not perfect), than actually put your own preferred solution on the table.
That is false. I want nothing of the kind. See above.
Until you do that, you're no better than Fabian Nunez.
Why do you continuously turn your arguments into a personal attack on me? The tactics seem to be to attack and deride the skeptical person instead of selling the measure on its merits. People attacked Doolittle without even discussing WHY he opposes it. Why is that? Should we all just line up and salute when your chosen politician backs a measure? Sorry. No can do.
Personally, I suspect this will result in more Democrats in the House, and more mushy-middle RINOs overall. Those are the same mushy-middle "moderates" who will most likely allow higher taxes in California.
Wrong again. (You keep saying, over and over, that you've read the text of the initiative. Obviously that isn't true. Interesting.) To aid you, I'll post the pertinent text here:
[Section 1 (c)(2)(A)] . . . the Judicial Council shall nominate by lot twenty-four retired judges willing to serve as Special Masters. Only retired California state or federal judges, who have never held elected partisan public office or political party office, have not changed their party affiliation, as declared on their voter registration affidavit, since their initial appointment or election to judicial office, and have not received income during the past 12 months from the Legislature, a committee thereof, the United States Congress, a committee thereof, a political party, or a partisan candidate or committee controlled by such candidate, are qualified to serve as a Special Master. Not more than twelve of the twenty-four retired judges may be of a single party affiliation, and the two largest political parties in California shall be equally represented among the nominated retired judges.The parts in bold are the criteria whereby the Judicial Council knows the field of "candidates" that are drawn by lot.
(B) A retired judge selected to serve as a Special Master shall also pledge, in writing, that he or she will not run for election in the Senatorial, Assembly, Congressional, or Board of Equalization districts adjusted by him or her pursuant to this Article nor accept, for at least 5 years from the date of appointment as a Special Master, California state public employment or public office, other than judicial employment or judicial office or a teaching position.
Again:
You: Like I said, the criteria is not mentioned.
I: See above. They're not just mentioned; they're spelled out in detail. Frankly, I don't think you're stupid; I just think you're disingenuous as heck.
Why do you continuously turn your arguments into a personal attack on me? The tactics seem to be to attack and deride the skeptical person instead of selling the measure on its merits.
Your stated reasons for "non-opposition opposition" (with apologies to "All The President's Men") do not withstand scrutiny. You have proclaimed repeatedly that you have thoroughly read and analyzed the proposal, yet then you say that it doesn't specify how the pool of eligible judges is to be determined. When someone is so completely (and readily demonstrably) WRONG, it sorta diminishes her in my eyes. Just a tad there.
As to your predictions about what may happen (RINOs and tigers and bears, O my!): Be principled. I want fairly drawn districts. Do you? I do EVEN IF it means some more RINOs, or for that matter even if it meant (somehow) more Democrats. But I don't believe those bad things will happen. Neither do the state and national Democrats, who suspect (as I do) that this reform would drastically undermine their unfair leveraging of power ... which is why they have ferociously lined up to oppose this reform -- like they did numerous other times.
You must choose. Vote for this imperfect reform, or don't. You aren't going to get a third option this year.
And no, sorry, I'm not for the measure because any one (or two or three) big-name folks are. But I trust Tom McClintock's and Ted Costa's judgement and healthy suspicions about putting power into the hands of the retired judges.
As to Doolittle, I did say why I rejected his "reasoning." Of course the GOP has several "safe seats" as a result of Democrat gerrymandering, and nearly all safe seats are held by liberal Democrats (Berman, Waxman) and conservative Republicans (Doolittle). It is great to have conservative GOP reps, and it's great for them to have seniority. But the price of GUARANTEEING those nice things is too high. Again: it means accepting a system whereby Democrats leverage 55% of the statewide vote into 65% of the state legislative seats. If lines were drawn in a non-partisan manner, overall -- that's the key word, OVERALL -- the GOP would do better.
I like by Republicans conservative, but it appears you ONLY want them conservative -- and that you're willing to let the Democrats run the state and gerrymander its districts if such is what it takes to guarantee "conservative Republicans only." I for one happen to believe that, in fairly drawn districts, conservative ideas can win elections on their own. They don't need the corrupt help of the decades-long gerrymandering that you're making apologies for.