5 ms·

> California's emphasis on citizen democracy Yeah, but there are much better ways to do it. I'd recommend a substantial decrease in the Citizen / Legislator r

by Empact 17y ago

> California's emphasis on citizen democracy Yeah, but there are much better ways to do it. I'd recommend a substantial decrease in the Citizen / Legislator ratio. That gives regular citizens greater access to their legislature, while giving its members the power and responsibility necessary for them to invest themselves in its decisions, and make a more direct case to the constituency for the more responsible policy decisions. For example New Hampshire has * 400 representatives for * 1.3 million people, or roughly * 3,000 constituents/legislator (illustrated: http://www.biblebaptistchurchmoldova.com/evangelism/images/mpp-0016.jpg http://www.biblebaptistchurchmoldova.com/evangelism/images/m...) Meanwhile, California has only * 80 representatives for * 38 million people, or roughly * 475,000 constituents/legislator (illustrated: http://kashmirwatch.com/postnews/data/upimages/eidgah22aug2.jpg http://kashmirwatch.com/postnews/data/upimages/eidgah22aug2....) New Hampshire citizens have over 150x the access to their state representatives, and those 400 legislators have 5 times the personal experience with laws and regulation to bring to the table. Now you may say it's crazy to suggest that California should have 12,000 state legislators, but I disagree. The practicalities which have capped large-scale decision-making have largely been wiped away with the invention of modern electronic communication. And having those 12,000 means you could keep them in their home neighborhoods, rather than call them out to Albany. This way there's always someone within a reasonable distance that you can speak to directly. Interestingly, with the position California is in, I'd think this idea (or a more moderate version of it, say 2,000 legislators) might have a chance at making it. That is, if people make a serious push for it in the new constitution.

anigbrowl 17y ago
There are some interesting ideas there. I'm not in favor of the sometimes-suggested solution of splitting CA up into smaller states, but along these lines, I can't argue with the observation that our US senators 'represent' about 19 million people each, whereas a senator from Montana represents fewer than half a million.
- veqon 17y ago
  The problem with our legislature is three fold. 1) We have safe political districts. The political districts are uncompetitive in the general elections. The only worry they have in getting reelected is if they don't appeal to the core of their party and are opposed in the primary. This leads to the most active, the most idea logical and the more fringe elements of the party deciding who our representatives will be. The people being elected are unwilling to compromise and so cannot find practical solutions. 2) We have term limits. The politicians do not have institutional memory and do not seek long term solutions to the problems. They are looking to move up to a more powerful position or at least they want to return home with a greater network of connections. So they spend every dime they can find and borrow as much as they can and are not there when the bills come due. The lobbyists do have institutional memories and are seeking long term solutions to their problems, not what is in the best interest of the state. 3) Proposition 13 Prop 13 was a tax-cutting measure that took care of the problem of property taxes skyrocketing as home values skyrocketed. This caused people to not be able to afford their homes any longer, not because they couldn't pay the mortgage, but because they couldn't pay the taxes . But it hit local governments especially hard. Key budgeting authority devolved from cities and counties up to Sacramento, where they have to compete with the state government for money. You want your streets paved or more teachers for your third grade? Stand in line behind the health department, or the corrections department, or Caltrans. And then the state borrows (takes?) the money it is supposed to send back to the cities and counties for it's own uses. California is not ungovernable -- it's just been ungoverned.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    An excellent post. As we all know, there are times when it no longer makes sense to keep maintaining legacy code which has begun to collapse under its own weight. In that spirit, I invite HN readers to look into the Bay Area council's proposal for a constitutional convention: http://www.repaircalifornia.org/index.php http://www.repaircalifornia.org/index.php Politics is an awkward subject, as evidenced by the often febrile debates here over libertarianism, the role of government and so forth. But those of us who are residents of California owe a lot to the state - not to be confused with The State - and as hackers, pride ourselves on having the energy and insight to make things work better. Rewriting our socioeconomic source code is a messy and likely thankless task, but no less worthy of our participation for that.
- veqon 17y ago
  I forgot to mention one more item. It takes a 2/3 vote to pass the budget. 50% + 1 makes much more sense. At this point I'd take 60% as much better solution.
  - anamax 17y ago
    Oh really? You think that 50% of the legislature would spend less than 60% would and that 60% would spend less than 66%?
    - veqon 17y ago
      I think that even if we had politicians capable of putting together a well conceived plan, a relatively small group can effectively veto any budget.
      - anamax 17y ago
        That may be true, but the actual claim was that the Repubs blocked something good. If so, we'll find said "something good" in Dem proposals. How many Dems were advocating 2005 level spending? How many Dems were willing to say "we'd love to have all these new programs but since we can't get the revenue, we're going to delay them or cut something else?" I'd love to be making 25% more than I actually am, but is it responsible to spend that way? If not, why are Dems off the hook?

by Empact 17y ago

anigbrowl 17y ago

There are some interesting ideas there. I'm not in favor of the sometimes-suggested solution of splitting CA up into smaller states, but along these lines, I can't argue with the observation that our US senators 'represent' about 19 million people each, whereas a senator from Montana represents fewer than half a million.

veqon 17y ago
The problem with our legislature is three fold. 1) We have safe political districts. The political districts are uncompetitive in the general elections. The only worry they have in getting reelected is if they don't appeal to the core of their party and are opposed in the primary. This leads to the most active, the most idea logical and the more fringe elements of the party deciding who our representatives will be. The people being elected are unwilling to compromise and so cannot find practical solutions. 2) We have term limits. The politicians do not have institutional memory and do not seek long term solutions to the problems. They are looking to move up to a more powerful position or at least they want to return home with a greater network of connections. So they spend every dime they can find and borrow as much as they can and are not there when the bills come due. The lobbyists do have institutional memories and are seeking long term solutions to their problems, not what is in the best interest of the state. 3) Proposition 13 Prop 13 was a tax-cutting measure that took care of the problem of property taxes skyrocketing as home values skyrocketed. This caused people to not be able to afford their homes any longer, not because they couldn't pay the mortgage, but because they couldn't pay the taxes . But it hit local governments especially hard. Key budgeting authority devolved from cities and counties up to Sacramento, where they have to compete with the state government for money. You want your streets paved or more teachers for your third grade? Stand in line behind the health department, or the corrections department, or Caltrans. And then the state borrows (takes?) the money it is supposed to send back to the cities and counties for it's own uses. California is not ungovernable -- it's just been ungoverned.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  An excellent post. As we all know, there are times when it no longer makes sense to keep maintaining legacy code which has begun to collapse under its own weight. In that spirit, I invite HN readers to look into the Bay Area council's proposal for a constitutional convention: http://www.repaircalifornia.org/index.php http://www.repaircalifornia.org/index.php Politics is an awkward subject, as evidenced by the often febrile debates here over libertarianism, the role of government and so forth. But those of us who are residents of California owe a lot to the state - not to be confused with The State - and as hackers, pride ourselves on having the energy and insight to make things work better. Rewriting our socioeconomic source code is a messy and likely thankless task, but no less worthy of our participation for that.
veqon 17y ago
I forgot to mention one more item. It takes a 2/3 vote to pass the budget. 50% + 1 makes much more sense. At this point I'd take 60% as much better solution.
- anamax 17y ago
  Oh really? You think that 50% of the legislature would spend less than 60% would and that 60% would spend less than 66%?
  - veqon 17y ago
    I think that even if we had politicians capable of putting together a well conceived plan, a relatively small group can effectively veto any budget.
    - anamax 17y ago
      That may be true, but the actual claim was that the Repubs blocked something good. If so, we'll find said "something good" in Dem proposals. How many Dems were advocating 2005 level spending? How many Dems were willing to say "we'd love to have all these new programs but since we can't get the revenue, we're going to delay them or cut something else?" I'd love to be making 25% more than I actually am, but is it responsible to spend that way? If not, why are Dems off the hook?