1) In the 1970's the Democrats atempted to increase ethnic minority representation in their reapportionment plans for the State of California. Minorities have been known to vote more with the Democrats and the Republicans knew this, hence why they fought so hard for a new reapportionment plan. Do you think that the Democrats were right in gerrymandering the way that they did in order for minorities to be more equally represented? Or, do you think that their claims of wanting to give equal representation to all are trumped by the fact that it gives them a distinct advantage over their counterparts?
2)
It has been said that essentially, through the gerrymandering process, the voters do not choose their politicians, but the politicians choose them. In fact, in the 2004 election - out of 153 seats, not one incumbent was defeated because of the way California was districted. Do you think that the lack of competition for seats is helping (i.e. giving politicians a "safe seat" enables them to focus more on their constituents' needs, instead of party re-election tactics) or hurting (i.e. allowing the politicians to choose their voters may not fully represent what the constituency as a whole) the "average" California voter?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I think that it is a very tough call weather giving them a "safe seat" would help or hurt. It seems that politicians are always thinking of the next election- and giving them some sort of safety should free up their planing time for working. What happens though, if you get a bad politician in office? If they are given a safe seat will there be a way to get rid of them? A bad candidate in office that couldn't be gotten rid of could hurt voters much more than someone who was distracted by their upcoming campaign.
I think that the certain districts are going to continue voting for their specific parties in the future because those are the typical people that have settled in those specific regions. I do feel that the Politicians have somewhat of a "Safe Seat", which might cause them to focus more on their specific thoughts on how to vote in the state congress. I do not feel that the politicians are completely safe from new and upcoming politicians in their party. (i.e. If politician 1 continually votes poorly and does not respect his or her voters, then the public will vote in a new person from the same party). I feel that politicians are always going to feel pressure from the California voter, but I feel that if their seat is somewhat "Safe", then perhaps they will vote a little more clearly and without so many conflicting viewpoints with the public.
From Doug Johnson
Fellow
Rose Institute at Claremont McKenna College
FYI: the Democrats did not draw California's 1970s redistricting plan. The California Supreme Court did (as they did in 1991).
The Court plans of the 1970s and 1990s have significantly improved minority representation. The Democratic plan of 1981 did essentially nothing for minority representation, and the bipartisan incumbent protection gerrymander of 2001 was challenged by MALDEF as an anti-minority gerrymander.
More details on the Rose Institute website:
http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/rose/redistricting/redistricting.php
Part of me would say that the politicians should not feel safe in their positions because they should have to feel like they want to stay high in the public opinion and care about whether or not they will get reelected. However, it is probably true that many candidates just say whatever they think people want to hear and spend too much time on their campaigns. So in a sense, they can go right back into office with perhaps previous plans that they wanted to fulfill in their next term.
The gerrymandering issue is also difficult to determine because it seems more fair that everyone should have an equal opportunity, yet since minorities do usually vote for Democrats, that doesn't seem fair to give them much of the advantage.
I feel that Politicians always have to watch their back and make sure they are staying honest if they want to continue raising their seat in politics. Over the past few years there have been many politician who have been caught doing wrongful acts. And certain districats are probably not going to change their votes for different parties, people dont like change, they tend to stick with what they are used to.
Gerrymandering has and always been around since the begining of our nation. It has been a tradition if you will by both Republicans and Democrats. I think a politician should feel safe if they are doing a good job in the seat. They should worry more about getting things done instead of worrying about the next election in two years. Yet on the other hand they should worry so that they appease those in their district to the best of his/her abilities. It would not be taking advantage of either because its done by everyone else. Ambition counters ambition if you will. In the last election many of those that thought that were "safe" lost their seats.
In today's society, I think it is becoming less and less important for minorities to be equally represented in the voting population in order to vote a minority into office. While unfortunately,it used to be if minorities weren't the primary group of voters a minority would never get into office but after President Obama was elected I am starting to have confidence that race is not a factor in voting.
The consistency of incumbents being reelected until they reach their term limit is a problem when citizens are unhappy with their government but continue to reelect the same person because s/he is a member of their political party. I think it allows the politican to accomplish more and try more extreme tactics because there is a confidence that they will be reelected. As the districts are constructed now, I feel that one can see what type of district they are moving to and live in like-minded areas if they so choose. This results in the voters being accurately represented.
Post a Comment