Login | Member Center | Contact Us | Site Map | Archives | Alerts | Subscribe to the paper

HomeBlogsThe Alpha State

« Hotel fires 12 |  Main  | Plato »

December 22, 2006

Even Castro doesn’t get 100%

My column this week is based on the fact that 7 Democratic state legislators were elected with 100% of the vote last month. It seems to me to be a travesty of democracy and proof positive that gerrymandered districts have become obscene.

I am flattered that 7 newspapers (Daily Breeze, Daily News, Pasadena Star News, San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Sonoma Tribune, Ventura County Star and the Whittier Daily News) carried the column and that I’ve received quite a bit of feedback from readers.

If you haven’t read it, click on extended entry....

California’s 100% Solution

Pull quote - Not even Fidel Castro wins 100% of the vote.

Scott Harris

What do the following individuals have in common?

State Senators Dean Florez in the 16th District, Gloria Negrete McLeod in the 32nd District, State Assembly people Noreen Evans in the 7th District, Juan Arambula in the 31st District, Richard Alarcon in the 39th District, Fabian Nunez in the 46th District and Mervyn Dymally in the 52nd District?

They are all Democrats and they all won election, or reelection, to the California State legislature last month with 100% of the votes cast in their district. This is not a misprint – 100%.

Everyone from the old political machines must be turning over in their graves with the California returns. Even the late mayor Richard J. Daley, who personified the infamous Chicago-ism “Vote early and often” never grabbed 100% of the vote. Responding to accusations that his father bought the 1960 presidential election, John F. Kennedy often joked that he received a telegram from Joseph Kennedy saying, “Don’t buy another vote, I won’t pay for a landslide.” Not even Fidel Castro gets 100% of the vote. What waste, what largesse – what a joke.

This over-the-top show of Democratic muscle and unfair districts also extended to the United States Congress where three more Democrat incumbents were elected with 100% of the vote: Jim Costa in the 20th, Xavier Becerra in the 31st, and Diane Watson in the 33rd. Congress is also where the Republicans had their single 100% victory, returning Gary Miller of the 42nd to Capitol Hill and proving that both parties can abuse the system. Democrats, however, are just better at it.

This means that in 11 California state senate, state assembly and congressional districts, the minority party (or parties) did not even bother to run a candidate. How is possible in a state where only 43% of registered voters are Democrats that seven Democratic state legislators are sent to Sacramento with 100% of the vote? Why didn’t Republicans or one of the minor parties even bother to put a candidate up against these Democrats?

How is possible in the 20 State Senate races last month, that in addition to the two unanimous decisions, seven won with at least 60% of the vote and nine won with 70% or greater? All 20 districts stayed with the same party and no incumbents were turned out.

The 80 State Assembly races were no different. Along with five unanimous “races,” all districts stayed with the same party and again, no incumbents were defeated. 41 won with at least 60% of the vote, 12 with 70% or more and six with 80%..

What is the answer behind such lopsided election results? Gerrymandered districts.

Regular readers of this column know that I believe the biggest obstacle to representative democracy – which is what we are supposed to have - is the gerrymandering of state senate, state assembly and congressional districts.

Not only does gerrymandering virtually guarantee results (in the last three statewide elections, no California state legislator incumbent has lost and no district has switched parties), it eliminates democracy.

There is no forum for debate, no discussion of issues, and no new ideas. We stifle the desire of future generations to get involved, and we fail to teach our children the value of a representative democracy and the importance of civic participation. How do parents and teachers in these warped districts respond when asked by future voters of California: “Why should I bother voting when my vote so obviously doesn’t count?” Rarely has a tired cliché proven so true.

Democracy is about ideas, choices and the voice of the people. Sacramento has effectively excluded the citizens of California from the election process. Unless we stand up and demand to have our votes count and counted, to have fair districts, great debates and campaigns worthy of our attention – we will continue to have our representatives chosen for us through a rigged system, rather than electing them ourselves.

As former State Controller Steve Westley said – it was easier to get voted out of the old U.S.S.R. Politburo than the California State Legislature. Let’s make the necessary changes – fair districts and honest politicians– to end this travesty.


Comments

Which came first -- self-serving politicians (gerrymandered districts) or an ignorant and apathetic public? In realty, they probably evolved together.

Which needs to come first -- diplomats running for office, or a caring informed public? More than likely, they will need to happen together.

A year or so ago, the LA Daily news published a study which said that 53% of the adult workers in Los Angeles (by extension this could mean the general base of adults in LA city) could not read. Period. The implications of an ignorant public, when it comes to matters of government, are HUGE! The recent success of Measure R in LA is a perfect example.

It is easy to talk about the apathetic, but it is time for us as a community to take a look at the uneducated and ask: What the heck are they basing their votes on?

Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Posted by: John Andersen at December 22, 2006 06:43 AM

I've always advocated that the goal should not be to improve the quantity of voters, but rather the quality. I hope we do that.

Thank you for your spot-on comments and Merry Christmas.

Posted by: Scott Harris at December 22, 2006 09:45 AM

Until and unless we take redistricting out of the hands of self-serving legislators, the only other way to make change happen is to make sure the incumbents are challenged in the primary. It won't entirely solve the problem, but at least the incumbents will have to be more accountable than they are now. -They will have to communicate with the voters and defend their actions more than they do now.
Right now all they do is spend time building giant warchests to intimidate challengers. And, as in the California Congressional Delegation, they protect their own. There is an understanding that any primary challenger will be crushed by the entire delegation. If you don't believe that, ask me why CRP Chairman Duf Sundheim had Congressman Darrell Issa call me in hopes of intimidating me out of standing by my original endorsement of Michael Tenenbaum made when Congressman Gallegly pulled out of the race for undislosed "medical" reasons.
The current incumbent protection plan is a disaster. Recently Mike Stoker said in his announcement that he is entering the race for Senator Tom McClintock's seat (open in two years due to term limits), and that he was not running for Congress because he cannot commit to the necessary 20 years required for Congress. Since when is there a guarantee for 20 years? I thought it was a 2 year term! Once you win, it is apparently the conventional "wisdom" that you will become a piece of DC furniture until you decide to retire, and it is considered nearly a criminal act to challenge them.
No wonder they say it's just a good ole boys club - it is!
Scott's article perfectly demonstrates the need for a better redistricting plan. Bravo!

Posted by: Leslie Cornejo at December 22, 2006 05:22 PM
Post a comment






Remember personal info?






Sponsored Links