Schrag: The Insularity and Lack of Diversity of Elected California Republicans vs. Democrats Who Look Like the State

The Republicans represent districts that are overwhelmingly white as compared to the state. Their districts are also much wealthier than most of the state. White, middleclass and rich guys who own businesses live in these areas and want their interests represented so they vote for those who do that. If you want this changed then speak to the Democratic leaders who re-draw the districts every 10 years.

Unless of course you are proposing that white middleclass and rich men don't deserve to be represented in government?

Mr. Schrag please consider:

1. The republicans elected to represent their districts won on a majority vote. They must have defeated their primary and later democrat opponents, regardless of their race or gender, because they were in the minds of the majority of voters the better candidate. Are you therefore suggesting that those majority of voters are somehow racist? Kind of a stretch isn't it?

2. The legislature has both a

--Latino Caucus

and a

--Black Caucus

Both of which are comprised of democrats. By their very titles, are these racist groups? Who are they looking out for? Asians? Pacific Islanders? Caucasians? Etc.?

I thought the legislature itself was a caucus? Why are there caucuses within a caucus and having racially specific titles? Agendas too?

I'm with Dr. Martin Luther King who said/I paraphrase: "Judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character".

Why do left/democrats always bring up race negatively in others when they should look in their own mirror first?

Bourke Hikenlooper, US Senator from Iowa and Roman Hruska, Senator from Nebraska were cited as living proof that "dumb people need representation too".

Both were distinguished Republicans.

There is an obvious solution to the "Republican Problem". Don't reform redistricting. Instead, violate the law by uniting distant populations in order to marginalize enough Republicans that Democrats gain a 2/3 majority. (Claim that "competitiveness" justifies such a classic gerrymander. Maybe you'll get away with it).

After the GOP has lost sufficient market share, perhaps they'll change their spots. Or join the Whigs.

The need for a vibrant opposition party to the Democrats is a purely hypothetical need - except for journalists

Mr. Cavala,

"...were cited by..." Cited by whom? You maybe? Leving out "who" did the citing could perhaps be considered, "Dumb", could it not? (There isn't a little elitist tinge in picking on folks from Iowa and Nebraska is there? Hillary and other democrats for president are after all courting Iowas voters right now...)

I thought it was the democrats who DID NOT want to do redistricting and here you say only the republicans benefit from the gerrymandered status quo. Which is it? Pick a position and stick to it!

(Now Term Limits "Reform", there you have an issue: Reducing the total time a politician can stay in office (good) BUT with the exception of those who would be termed out NOW (Perata, Nunez, etc.), under existing term limits? Sweet!)

Now I am NOT "Red Baiting" when I point out the lack of a, "... vibrant opposition party...", was already exercised in 1933-1945 in Germany or from 1917 to the early 1990's in the USSR? (And a few other places too many to mention). I don't think these examples of what you suggest worked out very well for a whole lot of people...

Recall your self admission as an unashamed political proponent (or "operative"?) of your party first and formost. Some of us are just trying to do things the best way for everyone...

The usual story about Hruska is that in support of some Supreme Court nominee (Hainsworth or Carswell or one of Nixon's clows), addressing the charge that the nominee was a mediocre intellect, he replied to the effect that those people needed representation also.

Regarding redistricting, it is clear that it will have no real effect except to run the Democrats out of money. Let's not forget that in 1990 the Democrats had to defeat two redistricting initiatives on the ballot in the primary and when term limits came along, there wasn't quite enough to defeat it (Roberti didn't send out a mailer from an ex-Republican Speaker of the Assembly because he needed the money for other things and term limits passed 52-48).

It is clear that the 2/3rd's vote is killing the Republican party in this state--no party can exist as completely irrelevant and the veto power in Sacramento is the only thing keeping the Republicans in business. If that 2/3rd's vote was changed to a simple majority, Republican candidates would start dropping their anti-abortion, pro-religion stance and be more like Schwartzenegger, who wiped the Democrats in 2006. This would lead to genuine two-party competition.

Perhaps I should footnote my remarks for Mr. Gould and any others who lack knowledge of recent history?

Or, perhaps not - since i really don't care what people who hide behind pseudonyms think. Especially pseudonyms of personages like Gould.

Mr. Cavala,

YES, you should footnote or ANYTHING else it takes to legitimize your points. Otherwise, its just mindless propoaganda...

As usual, you didn't address my points directly, you attempted to marginalize them. Nice.

I place my email right here like everyone else on this website. I OK you getting it if that makes you happy.

Funny, you never accuse those who share your views with using pseudonyms...Yet they are all over this website.(Publius for example. But he is good!)

Besides, what difference does it make what the name is IF the points are well made? Focus on that, lets see how well you do.

(Do as I say, not as I do...)

Have a nice day!

Publius is excellent. For extra credit, guess the historical reference.
Pretty soon I'll start adding Carthago delenda est as my sign-off (or maybe Republicos delenda est would be more appropriate).

It is difficult to add anything new to the many excellent comments.
There is the observation that California, as is the nation to some extent, is a divided state. There are several "Californias." Certainly there is a north-south divide, and there is an urban-rural divide. There are affluent communities and abysmally poor communities.
Why should these various divides not have their own representation?
It would be helpful to know the author’s ideal society, in terms of classifications of people, where they choose to live, and how they choose to influence the government of an irreparably divided and increasingly antagonistic populace. One could then consider whether that ideal can be reached by other than a totalitarian regime.

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.