UConn James Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 (edited) PBS' "Need to Know" takes a look at the redistricting process now taking place in California. Legislation last year that was touted by then-Gov. Schwartzenegger places redistricting duties to a 14-member committee comprised of 5 registered Democrats, 5 registered Republicans and 4 registered independents, all of whom do not hold an elected office. Link Some of those districts exampled from across the country are friggin' outrageous. But then again, I can actually see some reasoning for the California coastal district that's highlighted in the video --- coastal areas have their own sets of common concerns that can often get drowned out if a district is just a block; and that specific district is not jerry-mandered to a high degree. Anyway, this is an interesting system they've set up to ostensibly remove some of the "politicians carefully selecting their voters" charge. Personally, I think it'd be easier and more effective to impose term limits. Edited July 4, 2011 by UConn James
KD in CA Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 Personally, I think it'd be easier and more effective to impose term limits. Lack of term limits is the #1 reason why this country is !@#$ed. How anyone could be against term limits for all elected officials is beyond me.
Taro T Posted July 4, 2011 Posted July 4, 2011 Lack of term limits is the #1 reason why this country is !@#$ed. How anyone could be against term limits for all elected officials is beyond me. If along w/ term limits for the elected officials there are term limits for those polical appointees serving under them, then I am in favor of term limits. Unfortunately, my expectation is that if Congresscritters & Senators are limited to 6 or so years in office, then their staffers will consistantly be 'in office' significantly longer than the Critter they work for. It seems to me that would be one more way of removing accountability for the people actually drafting and driving the laws & regulations.
UConn James Posted July 30, 2011 Author Posted July 30, 2011 Did California just take a big step toward political sanity? : California's gerrymandered political districts have been a primary cause of the state's partisan gridlock, experts say. New, nonpartisan redistricting maps released Friday could help. Political experts have long blamed a significant part of the political gridlock in California on the partisan way that legislative districts were drawn. With most districts either strongly Democratic or strongly Republican, legislators were encouraged to play their party's extremes to be reelected.
DC Tom Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 If along w/ term limits for the elected officials there are term limits for those polical appointees serving under them, then I am in favor of term limits. Unfortunately, my expectation is that if Congresscritters & Senators are limited to 6 or so years in office, then their staffers will consistantly be 'in office' significantly longer than the Critter they work for. That's pretty much how it works now - the staffers get the real work done. When their guy leaves office, they go to another official's staff, or to a think-tank where they continue to work on The Hill anyway. And there's something to be said for having staffers (in general) being in one position long-term...akin to how NCOs are the backbone of any effective military. But only IF there's some sort of long-term vision or strategic guidance to follow, which is what's truly lacking in the US Government.
Joe Miner Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Lack of term limits is the #1 reason why this country is !@#$ed. How anyone could be against term limits for all elected officials is beyond me. My (*^*&%^$^#father-in-law worked for the state of Missouri. He argued with me about no term limits being a good thing because it allowed politicians to get to know the system so that they could really get things done. Did I mention he is a dipshit?
Recommended Posts