CA's own Black November: This election as the death sentence of the CA Democratic Party

As stated in the previous post, I was going to wait a few days until I'm done being enraged about the CA elections to talk about them, but a friend posted the link in the title as a comment and said he wanted to hear my opinion, and as most of you know I have a hard enough time not talking when I'm NOT solicited to, so here it goes. I apologize if this one is especially brutal, but I'm just so tired of the lunacy that governs politics in this State.

So. Kalifornia. The one thing everyone seems to agree on, including the author of the LA Times article, is that CA politics make no sense. I remember someone posting a comment after the 2008 November elections that said "I don't get CA. In the same election, we gave stretching rights to chickens and denied homosexuals the right to marry." Well, I get CA, and I guess everyone wants me to explain it, so here it goes. This is likely to dishearten most of you, but in the end I present why I think this system is about to change, drastically.

Inconvenient facts:

1. CA is NOT a blue state. At best, we are a state that LEANS liberal, but we are hardly the safe haven for Democrats that states like MD or NY are. If you look at voter registration and the outcome of the majority of our statewide elections, the Democrats usually get approximately 55%. That is not comparable to the sweeps both parties get in most safe states. For most states, 55% is a breakable margin, leaning toward one party but not safe for it. What makes us safe for the Democrats in most statewide elections (Governors, Senators, President) is our sheer size. CA houses 1/9 of Americans, 5% of votes in a general election for us is 100,000s of votes, that is a toll order to get to swing, although exceptions have happened with particularly unpopular candidates, such as when we fired Gray Davis in 2003. I don't have a problem with this, its just the nature of the system, but it is very relevant to the argument I'm about to make.

2. If we examine CA's legislative representation that is NOT elected through statewide elections (House of Representatives, State Senate, State Assembly), it becomes painfully evident how heavily each is tilted in favor of the Democrats in comparison to the 55% above. All 3 tend to teeter between 60-40 and 65-35 splits, a GROSS over-representation of Democrat voters. Furthermore, district representative elections in CA are by far the least competitive in the country. In the last 3 elections, all of which saw sweeping party changes across the country, each representative body from CA had 2 or 3 seats change parties. In this last election, in which 60+ seats in the House went from Democrats to Republicans, only 2 of these were in CA. Blue state or not, this is WAY less than our share as 1/9 of the country. WHAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS INCONSISTENCY?

3. CA is one of the 3 Gerrymandering capitals of the US, the other 2 being Florida and Texas. Gerrymandering, of course, is the drawing of representative districts in such a way that they are safe for one party or the other, and while it is trendy to refer to Gerrymandering as "evil corporations drawing districts in a way that disenfranchises the poor and minorities from electing favorable candidates", both parties are equally guilty of it and it can just as easily be done in a way that disenfranchises conservative voters. Redistricting is left to the state legislatures in most states, but different rules and precedents govern how this is done, and CA, TX, and FL have some of the most permissive laws in this regard coupled with some of the country's largest delegations to the Federal Congress. TX is artificially "reddened" by this effect whereas CA is artificially "blued", both holding a smaller-than represented majority of votes in the respective direction, and FL retains its status as such a critical state in terms of politics because it is a swing state despite its large size, allowing for some change of control between parties which then get to Gerrymander and help their national cause.

4. Over-representation of the controlling party is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the problem with Gerrymandering. The real problem is that it is LETHAL to any sense of legislative accountability. Almost every district is guaranteed to one party, including the smaller number of guaranteed Republican districts, which means whoever wins that party's primary is more or less guaranteed the election. Look up electoral history in San Diego County: each legislative body has its distinct districts and I don't think even ONE of them has changed party hands in the last 10 years, constituting 5 elections. To make the problem worse, CA has a system of closed party primaries where only people registered as members of that party could vote for that party's nomination, guaranteeing the incumbent would dominate just about every party race and when he/she retires, his/her hand-picked successor. Closed party primaries also tend to ensure the most stalwart candidate in that party gets the nomination, contributing to the "Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich" effect so gallantly described by an episode of the show South Park where every election has at least some interesting candidates at the primaries but the sleaziest tend to advance to the general election, kind of like John Kerry in 2004 and John McCain in 2008. Between these two effects, very few Sacramento legislators or US legislators from CA run any real chance of being sent home, and nothing is more dangerous than a politician that effectively CANNOT be fired by voters.

5. Hopefully the picture is becoming clearer, but we must now discuss the historic effects of these trends. The Gerrymandering problem pre-dates the famous Proposition 13 and its predecessors that place a 2/3 majority requirement on our budgets and tax hikes by decades. In fact, in the 1970s, when most large states reformed their re-districting laws to be less prone to Gerrymandering, CA opted to pass Proposition 13 instead. Opponents of Proposition 13, usually somehow affiliated with special interests that benefit from runaway taxation or just plain ignorant, claim that if the 2/3 majority were repealed, CA Democrats would still be held accountable by elections for unilateral over-taxation, but as we can see from this system, that simply isn't the case. I may address why 2/3 majorities are an excellent idea and perfectly in line with Constitutionally limited government in a later post, but let's stick to the situation in CA.

6. The problem with a 2/3 majority isn't that it stops the government from raising taxes, it is that our highly UNaccountable state legislature is not stopped by it from spending us into bankruptcy, and finds ways to circumvent it that are far more destructive than just raising taxes. You may be thinking of fees, which are charges the government can impose with only a simple majority and which it has used to an extent, but is now no longer allowed to do so as Proposition 26 that we just passed requires a 2/3 majority for them as well. But fees are only the tip of the iceberg, the real crack cocaine of CA's economy is BONDS. Many states have already passed the taxing themselves to the poorhouse stage, and discovered that raising taxes in a recession is like raising prices on groceries when you are taking losses from having too few customers. Just like you will have even fewer customers, revenue producing businesses will opt to leave or outsource jobs, and tax hikes will produce a net LOSS in revenues. Our State's obsession with excessive regulations on businesses does not help this situation. When this effect is reached through overtaxing, even if the legislature cannot be easily purged, it has no choice but to tighten its belt and be reasonable about spending, as thankfully states cannot print money. However, borrowing ourselves into oblivion, and then borrowing some more to cover immense deficits created by borrowing, has more far-reaching effects. Unlike schools and social services, banks who loan the state money don't react to "cuts" in their interest payments with colorful but pointless protests; they sue the state and it can either pay them or declare bankruptcy. Excessive borrowing has hence put CA in a position similar to someone losing their job WHILE knee-deep in credit card debt, we are to the point where most banks won't loan the state more money because of our terrible credit rating and no matter how much we cut social services, the debt burden keeps us in the red. This effect is further exacerbated by overuse of the referrendum process, as many of our bonds have been passed by propositions - a proposition for a tax hike requires 2/3 but those for bonds a simple majority, a fairly easy sell in such a huge State, just put some pictures of malnourished children on the mailer and enough ignorant voters will swallow it.

7. If the picture I'm drawing sounds grim, then the good news is that #7 will complete the list, but the bad news is that it will make it even grimmer. The claim that the LA Times article makes that CA's safety and services require a "bargain" is nothing short of ludicrous. Our state taxes are among the highest in the country, coupled with us holding the title of its violent crime capital in most years. Our obsession with entitlement programs attracts disproportionate amounts of dependent populations who move to CA from more conservative neighboring states like AZ and NV, establish residency, and get a free ride from this "generosity", which may be nice for them but creates infinitely rising costs for the welfare state, driving away revenue producers, creating a deficit. However, despite these entitlement programs, we have some of the highest poverty and health care deficiency statistics in the country. We are also the incarceration capital of the US which is the incarceration capital of the world, spending copious amounts of money on supporting inmates guilty of the most ridiculous crimes, from marijuana possession to shoplifting, and this is exacerbated by our ridiculous 3 Strikes Law. Our justice system is further crippled by the Megan's Law database that includes as "registered sex offenders" everyone who has ever been convicted of streaking or public urination, and provides law enforcement no easy way to distinguish the violent and dangerous ones for monitoring, stretching their resources and allowing monsters like John Gardner III to slip through the cracks and kill 2 teenage girls with a year lapse before they are caught. CA is one of the least hospitable states when it comes to vice and firearms; the alleged problems with firearm ownership are complete rhetoric which I may address in a later post whereas vice does correlate with some social problems; but these things are also vibrant and taxable industries that could provide more revenue. We didn't pass Proposition 19, we have a blanket ban on prostitution, and gambling is only allowed on Indian Reservations. Despite prohibition, these industries are impossible to enforce against and exist on EVERY CORNER, our denial of this only succeeds in bankrupting us. Then there are the public employee union tyrannies crippling our education and public works systems from instituting any responsible cuts that don't target minorities and poor neighborhoods, an excuse used by the same unions to oppose any cuts on the grounds that they "disenfranchise already poor children," but at least this problem is shared by many states. As enacting new taxes is so difficult in CA, most of the expansions that have created all this have been paid for by bonds, so even if they are cut, the money is already spent and has to be repaid. ANYONE STILL WANT TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT IT IS A RESPONSIBLE AND EFFICIENT SYSTEM THAT JUST HAPPENS TO BE UNDERFUNDED?

So, we're screwed, right? What are the good news? Well, the good news is that the special interests represented by the unaccountable over-representation of Democrats in our State legislature have likely just signed their own death sentence in this election. NO ITS NOT BECAUSE PROP 25 WILL RESULT IN ACCOUNTABILITY IF THEY PASS BUDGETS UNILATERALLY, THAT'S STUPID CONSIDERING THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM. But, that electoral system has seen its last election. Props 11 and 20 passed by a landslide whereas 27 failed by a landslide, turning over redistricting to a commission comprised of an equal number of representatives from both parties rather than the legislature. Of course this system is imperfect and has potential for corruption, but it is used by many states and has proven to reduce Gerrymandering in comparison to the system we have now. More importantly, however, the June primary election saw the passage by a landslide of Proposition 15 despite anrgy counter-campaigns by BOTH party establishments, a proposition that DID AWAY with closed party primaries. What this means is that from now on, every election in CA will work as non-partisan office elections have until now, every candidate from every party and independents on the same ballot in the primary (more than one per party if they want) and the top two vote-getters have a run-off in the general election. It is true that if the districting system doesn't change significantly, which it may, the same parties will likely hold on to their districts, but it is just as likely that far more moderate candidates from each party will win the general election and unpopular candidates will be ousted in the primary, solving the "douchebag incumbency" problem described above. These changes make this election cycle a TERRIBLE time to be the majority party that also holds the governorship, all the anti-incumbency furor empowered by these system changes will be unleashed on the Democrats in 2012, and if they decide to get carried away with the new power granted to them by Proposition 25, it is likely to make the economy worse rather than better in two years, exacerbating this effect.

So, there you have it. If you like Kalifornia the way it is, in the grasp of liberal-aligned special interests like the SEIU, you have 2 years left to enjoy it before it is changed, permanently.