I believe that when the Reapportionment Commission finishes its work for the 2012 elections nothing will change.
People forget that when the Supreme Court drew the lines after the 1990 census, the voters ended the decade by electing 48 Democrats in the Assembly and 24 in the State Senate. The 1980s and the 1970s ended with roughly the same results.
In his book, “The Big Sort”, Bill Bishop documents how people actually apportion themselves. We live in neighborhoods with folks who think, live, and vote like we do. So no matter who redraws boundary lines, we’ll end up with political districts where one political point of view will prevail because it’s the majority’s in our community of choice.
Perhaps the reform debate should consider that it’s not always that the system fails, rather that democracy works.
Remember campaign finance reform? It was going to change everything, too. Did it?
Campaign finance reform didn’t work because in a free society people give money to politicians and political causes they support. And no matter how you “reform” the system, the First Amendment protects our freedom to vote for, support, and contribute to people we agree with.
After all, we listen to radio talk shows that reinforce our point of view. We get our news from outlets that agree with us. Don’t we listen to music we like? Freedom is funny that way.
The proponents of the Constitutional Convention have acknowledged they can’t get off the ground unless they take Proposition 13 off the table.
California Forward has assembled great talent, sorted through dozens of ideas, and will propose some thoughtful improvements that will help on the margins but won’t fundamentally “change the system.”
Meanwhile, reformers who claim that they’ll get rid of the 2/3rds vote requirement for a state budget probably won’t succeed in having that change apply to raising taxes. The likely outcome will make it easier for the Legislature to pass broken budgets.
The Parsky Commission on tax reform was formed on the flawed notion that there can be such a thing as a “non-partisan” tax reform. How exactly can those decisions be non-partisan? Isn’t who pays-how much-for what the essence of partisanship?
When the latest wave of constitutional conventions, budget reforms, and tax reforms from “non-partisan, bi-partisan, post-partisan, and blue-ribbon” groups achieves what it can…. we’ll still be a society of people who have different needs, see things differently and hold different values.
Flying home after working on elections in New York and a union organizing campaign for school “lunch ladies” in Philadelphia, I changed planes in Chicago. I was delayed a couple of hours. I went to the bar near my gate. Two couples there were waiting for the same flight. As their wine flowed freely they began to talk politics with one another. I sat close enough to listen in. One guy finally tells a “joke”.
“Why isn’t the post office coming out with a stamp with Obama’s picture on it? Because people wouldn’t know which side to spit on.”
Yikes!
Did I sound like that harsh when I talked about George Bush? Probably.
Democracy doesn’t mean much when we all agree. It means everything when we disagree. It allows flawed people like me, you and those couples in the airport to govern ourselves by settling our differences, but without using guns.
The “system” and the legislature represent and reflect who we are. Nothing more. Or less.
