Printable View
Seeing the full court press for Amendments Y and Z just makes me suspicious. Looking at who is backing it, the first thought in my head was it was a way for the political elites to rig the system while ducking responsibility. I used to believe in "independent commissions" when I was young but after the last 20 years, I trust commissions less than a specific politician that I can hold accountable for his/her actions. Anyone have more information on this?
Just say no
Just do it
My only concern is who picks the "independent commissioners"? Are they picked by the legislators or governor (in which case they won't be "independent" so what's the point) or are they picked by the voters, so they'll have to be politicians and that doesn't sound all that good either.
Honestly i'd almost rather have the districts drawn by a computer program that is designed to make each of the districts as close to a solid blob as possible (none of these stringy districts that look like a river map).
Looking at the endorsements; http://fairmapscolorado.com/endorsers/ It looks like The Independence Institute supports it, so that makes me think its not horrible?
Isn't it an "independent" commission selected by the hick that keeps going after masterpiece bakery?
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by sroz
The claim I've heard on the radio is that the commission would be 3 people: a Republican, a Democrat, and an Unaffiliated. We'll see. I too agree with the computer idea.
Imperfect solution to a problem IMHO.
The only advantage is that if the state House stays blue in the future, this could prevent Dem gerrymandering by maintaining a 1/3rds split; Dems, Reps, Indys. Of course the definition of "independent" is questionable but that does define about 1/3rd of the state IIRC.
If the House is Dim and the gov is Dim, this ends up being under their control anyway.
Thing is, since we all vote by mail now, maybe we need to stop making districts by area and just start assigning voters to a district randomly.
Balance party affiliation and maybe even randomize it every election (so you're never in the same district twice except by random chance)
That seems like it would make a representative government a train wreck. When your constituents are peppered in among other reps, how do you get anything accomplished? On one hand, the government that can't accomplish anything has more value to me than one that taxes and spends at a breakneck pace. On the other, why do we even need them there to accomplish nothing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Or maybe I'm not picking up on what you really mean.
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk
Yeah, that idea is probably a bad one ... but the other idea of having a computer draw the districts with the goal of keeping them as close to circle, or square or rectangle so you do away with these districts drawn to advantage a party that look like spider webs.
Depends on who is writing and maintaining the computer program. Think Facebook, Google, Twitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by RblDiver
I’m am suspicious of any group requiring labels to participate. Who’s vetting this board? Republicans and democrats can be all over the spectrum from centrist to far left or right. And independents are independent because either the dems are not far enough left or the repubs are not far enough right and everything in between. So, any group could be left leaning or right leaning and still fit there criteria. I don’t think we solve any problems with Y and Z and possibly create new ones. Good intentions don’t always pan out.
Considering one can change their party affiliation with a few mouse clicks I agree that this is a problem. What's to stop two democrats from changing their registration to "Republican" and "unaffiliated" and then the entire "independent" board is 100% Democrat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
Seems to me that the best way to choose the Republican and Democrat members of the board is to have each of the parties select the board members via a vote of their own members (but that still means a Democrat can become "unaffiliated" and bias the board in favor of D's).
I guess the only other option could be that in order to qualify to be on the board, you have to have been a registered voter in Colorado and a member of one party continuously for the last 10 years. (but I guarantee they won't have such stringent requirements).
How long do they serve? Is it a life time appointment? Is it a paid position or unpaid voluntary? Exactly who gets to choose these members? Can common citizens have members removed? Should common citizen have the power to remove members? Will it end up being a sought after cushy political appointee position? Will there be bribery? I could go on, but it makes my head hurt. Good things don’t always come from good intentions. At least the system we have now is tied to elected officials that can be replaced.
I'm not even convinced all of the backers have good intentions. I did note the Independence Institute seems to support it but I also see heavy backing from groups that frankly make me even more suspicious -- but that's why I was asking if anyone on the board had more info. When the ACLU, AFL-CIO, AFT, Common Cause, etc. and politicians like Dick Skormann band together on something, chances are it's not good. Just too many inveterate liars on that backers list for my tastes ... OTOH, I see the likes of Hank Brown and Scott McInniss supporting it too ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Big E3
Less government the better.
Sent from my electronic leash using Tapatalk