In you live in California, please warn people against Prop 11.

[20score]

With Democrats making up 44% of the population in California, and Republicans making up 33%, this proposition would be a disaster. Completely disenfranchising a good portion of the voters in the state. Hurting the state and the country.
There are numerous ads for this proposition touting fairness, but almost none against. They are trying to redistrict and possibly turn California red.

This is Tom Delay’s dream. We have to stop this.

http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/title-sum/prop11-title-sum.htm

[Initech]

1. Emphasis - NO ON 11

They are trying to completely redistrict the state with this one... scary shit! :scared:

[AlCzervik]

2. voting no on 11 for sure. No on 4 and hells no! on Prop h8.

[20score]

3. There are a few that are really bad. 4, 6, 8, 9, and 11.

But 1A, 2, 5, 7, and 12 are pretty damn good.

[AlCzervik]

4. is 1a the high speed rail, i should know this btw i have the telephone book size voters guide.

[20score]

5. Correct!

[slackmaster]

6. People who abuse hyperbole deserve to be taken out and shot

Propostion 11 would not disenfranchise one single voter.

For another thoughtful point of view that concludes it would be better for the state than the current messy system, please see:

http://www.peterates.com/props-1108.shtml#prop11

[20score]

7. Especially when they mix irony with hyperbole.

This measure is being funded be Paul Singer, a right ideologue who has a long history of funding right-wing causes. Even the swift boat liars for truth. Is there any possibility he is doing this to be fair? To help Democrats? Minorities? Is there any possibility that after there is a redistricting there will be more Democratic districts? No, there isn't. Nor will it stay the same. So, what does that leave?

Yes, that's right! Less. So, with more Republican districts and less Democratic electoral votes, there will be more Californian voters not being represented. Or disenfranchised.

http://www.democrats.com/paul-singer:-giulianis-neocon-billionaire

http://www.calitics.com/tag.do?tag=Prop+11

http://www.democrats.com/who-is-paul-singer

[slackmaster]

9. You have to also consider who is most actively opposed to it

All of the big labor unions that have the current legislature in their pockets. Supporters include NOW and California Common Cause.

Our legislature is broken. We have big problems with entrenched special interests and excessive spending.

there any possibility that after there is a redistricting there will be more Democratic districts? No, there isn't. Nor will it stay the same. So, what does that leave?

Yes, that's right! Less.

Right now we are very close to having one party with 2/3 majorities in both houses. I don't care which party it happens to be. That is out of balance with the population, and puts us at risk of having the same kind of out-of-control taxation that led to the voters pushing for and winning the supermajority requirements we now have. As of October 20, the (registered) population is 44.4% Democratic, 31.4% Republican, 19.9% Declined to State, and 4.3% Other. A party that represents less than half the population does not deserve to hold nearly 2/3 of the seats in the legislature without earning it. The present system also gives the Republican Party greater than proportional representation - Less than 1/3 of the voters control more than 1/3 of the seats. What's fair about that?

See http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror_102008.htm for voter registration statistics. Look closely at the historical statistics. Other than the most recent election cycle which has seen a small gain in registered Democrats, the Democratic Party has been losing members at about twice the rate of the GOP for decades. There is a reason for that - As a party (any party) approaches monopoly status in the legislature, it becomes less and less accountable to its constituents.

The Democratic majority is in absolutely no danger, and not one voter would be disenfranchised by this change (unless you define disenfrancisement so as to make independent voters disenfranchised under the present system). I'd rather see at least some districts where someone who isn't either an incumbent or an "heir apparent" has a chance of even getting to the general election. I want to see districts that make some sense geographically. Having a community or town divided into different districts for the convenience of career politicians does not serve communities well.

So, with more Republican districts and less Democratic electoral votes, there will be more Californian voters not being represented. Or disenfranchised.

You are comparing apples to oranges here. No, I am being too generous. Your argument is pure nonsense. Electoral votes are decided by the statewide popular vote, and the winner takes all. The makeup of the legislature has absolutely nothing to do with how electoral votes are allocated in Presidential elections.

[Raine]

8. The only one I'm voting yes on for sure is

#2 ... maybe #5

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Good luck California!

And I mean that. Sadly, as a CA native, I hear each day from Californians, and have even read on DU, that CA is sooooo Blue, soooo in the bag for Obama, that there is no need for them to volunteer or work on anything. They say they just need to 'kick back and watch a landslide for Obama'. They are certain that nothing Republican wins in CA, even as they watch the Terminator stumping for Palin, using the color of authority given him by many Democratic Californians who voted for him. If Arnie were just some old action star, he'd not be in a position to promote anyone. He'd not be in that position without Democratic votes and Democratic apathy. And that is just a fact.