I’ve not been all that coy on the fact that I think California’s government, structurally is not built on a solid foundation. We have our messed up tax code that taxes the poor at a higher rate than the rich. (Yup it’s true…mad props out to Peter Camejo for pushing this theme. Oh and Warren Buffet who once famously said that his housekeeper paid higher taxes than he did…only to be muzzled by Arnold, whom he was advising at the time) We have issues like the 2/3 rule that hinder true representative democracy. And don’t even get me started on the issue of ballot box budgeting. Ok, actually, maybe just a little bit.
Flip it…
Look, democracy is cool. I love the feeling of the raw democratic (small d) power of the initiative process. But unless you are the size of ancient Athens when all the voting-eligible citizens could meet in one meeting room (it’s a lot easier when you exclude all but the rich, male landowners), direct democracy has some serious flaws. I know Hiram Johnson meant well when he pushed to remove the power from the railroads that controlled the legislature at the time, but these are different days. Heck, back in the day the California legislature actively encouraged genocide. I hope we are at a different point in history.
Take, for example the Runners. As I mentioned a few days ago the Runners, who passed the horribly drafted Jessica’s Law, are looking into quashing gangs. Problem is that the way they want to do it is to push more gang members into prisons…whereupon they become more active in the gangs of the prison. Wonderful!
There is no panacea. Neither open primaries (which former Assembly member Joe Canciamilla is very, very fond of), nor splitting the property tax rolls (although that would be a really good start) nor anything else would solve all the problems. Each reform comes with its own benefits and its own drawbacks. For example, take a look at reapportionment reform. All the proposals now are to take this power away from the legislature and give it to some other party. Great, but how do you select that group. Oh, and by the way, you’ve now created an unelected, unaccountable body, likely consisting of Californians who don’t have much of a background in the science of drawing district lines. Sure, we could reject the maps, but then it’s back to square 1. All in all not that attractive of a possibility for the accountability thing.
Oh, and one other major flaw of relying on reapportionment to “moderate” our representatives (other than the fact that many of us don’t really want to see our representatives moderated): it likely won’t succeed. Which districts that were uncompetitive will become competitive? I’m sure you could count the number on a single hand. Oh, sure, a less generous plan to incumbents likely would see greater minority representation, which isn’t a bad idea, either, but it’s just really, really hard to point at districts and say, that seat will be newly competitive, so those legislators will have to be more “moderate”. As much as Common Cause or the Governor want it to be so, it’s just not going to have the effect that they desire.
For better or for worse, America has gradually, and now very pointedly, segregated ourselves along political lines. San Francisco is a progressive area, with a large bloc of progressive voters, and It’s just not possible to make the district competitive. Those who have chosen to live in the vast suburbia that is the OC have consciously chosen that. And furthermore, where districts do spread long distances, there are currently general interests that unite those distances. (Take CA-01, where Mike Thompson represents all of the North Coast, much of which has very commen interests when compared to the interests of say, Redding) To argue that we can somehow draw political lines that are going to change the game is either naive or colored by unrealistic optimism.