Yes, PA-12 is a bellweather

I had to write about this election, because there has been a ridiculous amount of spin from Republicans about what it means for November. John Boehner made the claim that Republicans would pick up 100 seats in the House and Newt Gingrich made a slightly smaller estimate of 45-70 seats. The Democrats retaining PA-12 bodes poorly for Republican hopes of a wave. A lot right-wingers have been scrambling to make sense of this, saying that it is a solid Democratic district because of it's 2-1 voter registration numbers in favor of Democrats and that Republicans never really had a chance. If that were true, the NRCC wouldn't have poured money into the race, they don't have cash to just throw around on safe opposition seats. They really thought they could win this seat, but once they failed to do so, the argument changed.

This is exactly the sort of seat Republicans need for a majority in the House. Many marginal seats are in the Rust Belt, which includes Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio and parts of New York. If they cannot pick up seats here, where else can they? Republicans peaked heavily in the 1994 election, picking up Southern constituencies that had long been trending Republican, so it's not like they have options like they did back then. Also, there were lots of moderates that won seats, but this year isn't a good one for moderate Republicans to win primaries, so the odds get lower.

Democrats represent 49 districts that McCain won, getting a majority in the House would require them to get 40 of those seats to put them right at 218. A lot of these Democrats are safe because they do good work for their districts and bring home the bacon, so some seats are non-starters for Republicans if they aren't open. For Boehner and Gingrich's predictions to come true, Republicans would have to run the table on all those districts, plus pick up much more heavily Democratic districts. After PA-12, I suspect the Republicans won't raise expectations so high.

In 1994, Republicans won two May special elections and gained seats from Democrats, that was the sign of a wave coming. It's true that Republicans won a Senate seat in Massachusetts this year, but that election happened quite early in the year and it's hard to sustain that sort of momentum for months. I do think that the Republicans peaked too early and that nationalizing these individual races isn't going to resonate. In PA-12, they ran against Obama and Pelosi, but as the result proved, the voters were not factoring them into their decision. Other Democrats are going to take a note from Critz, run local and talk about jobs. That is why PA-12 is a bellweather.

A unicameral legislature would be far more efficient

Most would agree that government in California isn't working, but most can't agree what the solution is. I believe a good first step towards efficiency would be to abolish the State Senate and have the Assembly as the sole legislative body. The Supreme Court case, Reynolds vs. Sims made the State Senate pointless, because the entire point of the body was changed. Before that case, the State Senate was based on counties, sort of an imitation of how the US Senate represents entire states, but since that premise resulted in unequal districts in terms of population, it was changed. Today, 40 State Senators represent over 846,000 residents, more that Congressman represent. With that many constituents, it makes it hard for locals to connect with their representative and some areas of the district might get more focus than others, simply because the Senator might not be familiar with all of the district. All that aside, it serves as another layer of gridlock when things need to get done in a timely manner. Having two houses in the Legislature is redundant and results in endless back and forth games that sometimes lead to nothing but wasted money and time.

All that aside, abolishing the Senate and increasing the seats in the Assembly would mean more representative government. Adding 40 seats to the Assembly would cut district sizes almost in half, equaling better representation. Having the districts even smaller would be better, but the cost effectiveness of this would need to be reviewed. This wouldn't solve all the problems, but it would make it easier to move toward solutions.

The fairest solution to redistricting

The next round of redistricting is the subject of much talk this year. The Democrats in the legislature want to overturn the commission, because the pool of candidates isn't diverse enough. Rather or not the commission or the legislature draws the districts, the partisanship will still be present in the process, because the commission isn't non-partisan. The path to fair districts is to set a benchmark on how districts on drawn, not just who draws them. Redistricting should be based on statewide voter registration numbers, with legislators or commissioners only being permitted to draw a certain number of safe seats for a party.

Here's how the current voter registration numbers look for California:

Democrats 44.6
Republicans 30.8
Independents 20.2

Breaking down the numbers, for the assembly that would mean Democrats would get to have 35 seats with majority or strong plurality, Republicans would get 24 and 16 would be swing seats. The numbers for the State Senate and Congress would be based on the same percentages and allow for 8 and 10 swing seats respectively. The size of the current districts might make it hard to draw that many competitive districts, but it wouldn't be impossible. There are many traditionally swing areas in California that have been marginalized to make Democratic and Republican safe seats and that has really hurt the process because it has created an unwillingness to compromise. With more swing seats in play, it would make finding more middle ground appealing and encourage legislators to work together. Using criteria like this insures fair districts, while preserving voter party preference.

Please, no grandstanding

I was recently surprised to learn that termed out 37th District Assemblywoman Audra Strickland would be challenging two-term County Supervisor Linda Parks. Now first off, I don't think I really need to emphasize the fact that both Stricklands are career politicians and frequently office shop every season, because most locals already know that. What is problematic about this latest campaign is that Strickland moved to the 2nd Supervisor's District to challenge Parks, Strickland previously lived in Moorpark with is located in the 4th District represented by Supervisor Peter Foy. Strickland was convinced to run by the Republican Central Committee for Ventura, which includes her husband and mother-in-law. The fact that Parks endorsed former Assemblywoman Hannah-Beth Jackson over Tony Strickland in the 2008 State Senate race is likely fueling this move. Strickland came right out the gate with partisan rhetoric that has no place in a non-partisan race.

Linda Parks has a track record of effectiveness and independence, Audra Strickland has been highly partisan in her Assembly tenure and has accomplished very little. Personal vendettas and pettiness do nothing to help the current situation our state is in, bringing that sort of gridlock down to lower levels of government will further exacerbate the situation. This time, let's say no to the Strickland's office shopping.

Untitled

This is my first post and I couldn't think of a good title. Many times I can write a composition and the hardest part is deciding on a title. Enough about that and onto what this blog is about. This blog is about California politics and my views on them. I want to start off by talking about the economic crisis and poverty.

California has been hit hard by the global economic crisis and the state budget deficit has required cuts to key programs. Unemployment is at 12% and even more are underemployed. This crisis had many causes, but my take on the situation is the closure of discount retailers heavily contributed to California's problems. K Mart closed up shop in many places in California and Mervyns ceased to exist all together. Here in my city of Thousand Oaks, those were great losses, as the city has a growing lower to middle income population, including many seniors. Many people with tight budgets relied on this merchants because of affordable prices, but now their options are more limited. California is a very working class state and when the buying power of the working classes is reduced, the economy tanks even more. I wasn't a big proponent of the bailouts, but I do think that merchants that serve every day people should have been considered for receiving funds. Not only did they provide affordability, they also provided jobs.

As someone who knows what it is like to struggle to put food on the table, I am writing from a very personal prospective. I spent early years of my life living in a motel and then spent a few more in a tiny studio in dilapidated, tough neighborhood. There wasn't even an indoor bathroom and when it rained, the studio would flood. I'm not telling that as a pity story, I'm telling it because I want to make it clear I know about the subject I'm speaking on. Even when this crisis is over, we need to look at our economic process and see how we can make it work for all citizens. In good economic times, there are still those out there who can't find work or can't make ends me, forcing them into extreme poverty. We the people need to reach out to our communities and work toward solutions. Some of us don't have a lot, but many of us have expertise and knowledge we can share that is useful to those who have even less. The reason our elected official don't hear us most of the time is because community spirit is at an all-time low and the only time the politicians talk to us is every 2 or 4 or 6 years, and that is something that must change. My bigger point is, we can't look to politicians to have all the answers, many of them lie with us and we need to step up to the plate and start finding them.

Shadrach