I can’t speak for those who enthusiastically support Prop 50 on principle, who seem (if this thread is any indication) to be in the minority. It seems to me to be a matter of survival, survival of enough of the country to recover itself post-Trump. This may not be possible anyway, I’d rather not get into a discussion of that, but I think we have to try. Some evils, like gerrymandering in California, will be relatively easy to undo when there is breathing room to do so. Some evils, like the tearing down of the country’s ruling principles, leaving only personal will to replace them, will be very difficult to undo if they are allowed to continue through to fruition.
Speaking of referees, since our Supreme Court seems in the bag for the President in most important areas, it seems folly to continue to rely on that institution as a backstop.
Yes, the opposition is decrying the loss of principles. Ahnold is very strong about how this represents the politicians taking power back, against the will of the people to oppose gerrymandering. I’ll bet you can find some of their ad spots on YouTube and see for yourself.
I was going to vote for it because my representatives and state assembly are otherwise likely going to change over to right-wing winners. It unfortunately takes some research to determine that will likely occur.
Neither, really. They are just concentrating on California and ignoring the wider question of the United States as a whole. The argument is that the original Proposition 11 was a great good and that Prop 50 by contrast is anti-Democratic and turns back the clock to allow politicians to take power from the people.
I will note that back in the day while some prominent Democrats supported Prop 11 and the Republicans certainly did (and nobody donated more to the campaign than Schwarzenegger), the CA Democratic Party as an organization and major figures like Nancy Pelosi did not. It was all about whose ox was being gored and cynical national politicians like Pelosi were loath to surrender a potent tool like gerrymandering, while even-then-in-the-minority cynical CA Republicans wanted to make sure it wasn’t used against them. It ended up being a very close vote in the end.
I will vote yes. I do not feel that it is wrong in the least. Scotus said it’s not wrong for Texas to do it, so we’re just ‘playing’ by the same new rules. Fuck them. I’m very disappointed in Arnold.
I get that, but if you (general you) want to say that what Texas is doing is horrible, then even if you are doing it for the greater good, you doing it is horrible too. At least pro-Prop 50 have to admit that and be Machiavellian in their rationale.
Well, yes. It’s just that we can see and acknowledge the horror. Context makes it necessary, but it doesn’t change the bare facts that we’ll end up with a less representational delegation to Congress.
Republicans might be better off with Democratic leadership, but I don’t think you can say “it’s for your own good / the greater good” as you disenfranchise part of the voting population.
To use an analogy I can absolutely say that it’s horrible to use violence against another human being and also use violence to defend myself against attack.
If California had acted first, then I would decry it as horrible and misguided even if you could guarantee me that it would cost the GOP the House. But California did not act first - they are responding to another state’s actions. And that matters.
Count me as another who is not happy it’s come to this, but it didn’t even take a nanosecond for me to say “hell yeah”. These are dire times and we don’t have the luxury of listening to our better angels. I have a feeling this isn’t even close to how low we may have to go.
I would prefer a different spin on this. My better angel would never urge me to martyr myself in the interests of some putative moral purity. Doing the right thing is important to me, but it is not the only consideration in the world.
Most of us probably have serious things at stake here, on a personal level. Whether it’s health care, being treated fairly as an immigrant, not seeing our sons shot up in a pointless war, or dozens of other threats. For me, I’m a gay man, married to a gay legal immigrant. I can see my marriage dissolved and my husband deported for the moral turpitude of being gay, without warning, seized by thugs in masks supported by insane policy and public indifference. That’s what I’m fighting against.
I’d like to drop into this thread just to say how pleased I am to see so many people saying something that in my experience is quite rare: that when something is necessary you should do it, but that the fact that it’s necessary doesn’t make it right.
It’s all too common for people to conclude that because they had to do something (because the consequences of not doing so were worse than the thing done to counter those consequences), that therefore the thing must have been right. Which is dangerous, because a right thing will be done more easily the next time, and the times after that. It’s far better to do the necessary thing while acknowledging that it’s also a wrong thing — but that seems very hard for many people to do.
The people are the ultimate arbiters. Choosing to discount that doesn’t make it true.
If you can point to that time where someone got out and said, “Why don’t we just fix this?” Then we can talk. As it is, you and I both know that no one has done that. Everyone would rather get to on kicking each other in the balls than play a straight game. Pretending that it’s just the other side leading the way just ain’t true.
Well California did when they passed a state constitutional amendment by voter referendum to get rid of gerrymandering. Now that they’ve seen opposing political factions only gerrymander more they’re having another referendum to go back to playing based on the federal law that exists rather than create additional rules that only apply to themselves