5 ms·

Many HN readers live in California, so it may be worth mentioning that redistricting in that state is handled by the independent California Citizens Redistricti

Many HN readers live in California, so it may be worth mentioning that redistricting in that state is handled by the independent California Citizens Redistricting Commission [1]. The commission was put in place by a couple of voter initiatives, which were opposed by many elements of the political establishment. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was one of the primary supporters of the two initiatives [2][3]; I consider the CCRC to be one of Gov. Schwarzenegger's most significant accomplishments. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistricting_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Citizens_Redistrict... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_11_(2008)#Donors_supporting_Prop_11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_11_(200... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_20_(2010)#Supporters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_20_(201...

secabeen 10y ago
Agreed. California voters should also be aware that every few years, the parties try to sneak in propositions that de-fang or diminish the commission.
r00fus 10y ago
Amusingly, it's possibly because of the CCRC that Democrats won a supermajority in the CA assembly as CA has shifted even more blue since it's been in effect.
- Taek 10y ago
  Is this because of unfair districting or because a genuine supermajority of citizens is Democratic?
  - bsder 10y ago
    Mostly genuine. However, the "jungle primary" also has an effect. Since the top two vote getters irrespective of party go to the general election, you can't just squeak by a primary and then cruise to victory in a safe district (the Tea Party tactic). The minority party gets to weigh in at the general, so if two Republicans or two Democrats go to the general, the more moderate one is going to likely pull more votes from the minority party. This pulls people closer to center which tends to favor Democrats.
    - jacobolus 10y ago
      This conclusion seems implausible. Can you give a specific example of a district where this effect was observed in a real election? i.e. where the Republicans would have won a seat because of a radical (of either party) winning a primary, but ended up losing the seat because of the “jungle primary”.
      - euyyn 10y ago
        Irrespective of examples, which I don't know, what is incorrect in that reasoning? And why is the conclusion implausible?
      - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
        > This conclusion seems implausible. It's plausible under the assumptions that Democrats tend to field a moderate candidate in their primary and Republicans don't. That seems pretty reasonable to say right now, but might be less true in a few years as die-hard progressives mount our own "Tea Party"-style insurgency within the Democratic Party.
gozur88 10y ago
I'm not sure there's really any such thing as a nonpartisan commission, but assembly races do seem to be more competitive.

secabeen 10y ago

Agreed. California voters should also be aware that every few years, the parties try to sneak in propositions that de-fang or diminish the commission.

r00fus 10y ago

Amusingly, it's possibly because of the CCRC that Democrats won a supermajority in the CA assembly as CA has shifted even more blue since it's been in effect.

Taek 10y ago
Is this because of unfair districting or because a genuine supermajority of citizens is Democratic?
- bsder 10y ago
  Mostly genuine. However, the "jungle primary" also has an effect. Since the top two vote getters irrespective of party go to the general election, you can't just squeak by a primary and then cruise to victory in a safe district (the Tea Party tactic). The minority party gets to weigh in at the general, so if two Republicans or two Democrats go to the general, the more moderate one is going to likely pull more votes from the minority party. This pulls people closer to center which tends to favor Democrats.
  - jacobolus 10y ago
    This conclusion seems implausible. Can you give a specific example of a district where this effect was observed in a real election? i.e. where the Republicans would have won a seat because of a radical (of either party) winning a primary, but ended up losing the seat because of the “jungle primary”.
    - euyyn 10y ago
      Irrespective of examples, which I don't know, what is incorrect in that reasoning? And why is the conclusion implausible?
    - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
      > This conclusion seems implausible. It's plausible under the assumptions that Democrats tend to field a moderate candidate in their primary and Republicans don't. That seems pretty reasonable to say right now, but might be less true in a few years as die-hard progressives mount our own "Tea Party"-style insurgency within the Democratic Party.

gozur88 10y ago

I'm not sure there's really any such thing as a nonpartisan commission, but assembly races do seem to be more competitive.