The Sacremento Bee is reporting on a effort by a couple of state legislators to overhaul the entire electoral system in the country's most populous state.
Under the legislation to be submitted next year by Democrat Joe Canciamilla of Pittsburg and Republican Keith Richman of Northridge, a "citizens assembly" would be created to come up with a new electoral system and place it in the form of a constitutional amendment on the November 2008 ballot.
A draft of the bill doesn't mention what kind of changes might be proposed. But Canciamilla and Richman said in interviews that they strongly favor such changes as proportional representation, independent redistricting, term-limit modification and campaign finance reform.
First, why a "citizen's assembly?" Is that not what a legislature is? I can see the need to have such an assembly if the current legislature is unresponsive to the demands of the public. But I suspect that electoral reform is not high on the agenda of most California voters.
"I think the confluence of gerrymandered districts, short term limits and campaign finance have resulted in legislators being unwilling to do anything other than vote for the agendas of the special interest groups that are going to help them get re-elected or elected to their next office," Richman said.
Fine, their list of potential reforms is interesting, so let's examine some.
Why, whenever there is any proposal for a "reform" of the "electoral system" does campaign finance get mentioned. Don't get me wrong, the California campaign finance system is....complex would be a polite term, downright stupid and confusing is more accurate. (Want an example, PACs file campaign finance reports electronically, but are still required to send paper copies!!!. Want another example, camapaign finance reports are filed with one office, but interpretations about the law are provided by a different office. You could get different answers from different offices--it has happened to me). I suggest the legislators examine my ideas for a campaign finance system.
But this idea intrigued me:
Although the draft legislation does not recommend any specific changes in the electoral system, those involved say they are interested in exploring a proportional voting system along the lines of the parliamentary systems of Europe.
The New America Foundation was asked into the conversation as a result of its research on a newly created proportional voting system in British Columbia. The foundation's Lesher said one example of proportional voting would feature multiple-seat districts in which voters might be asked to select four candidates each in 10 state Senate districts rather than just one each in the current 40 districts. Accompanied by guaranteed representation for any political party that reached a minimum threshold, Lesher said such a system could result in more urban Republicans and rural Democrats being elected in districts that are dominated now by one party or the other.
The theory being given for the change is to reduce the polarization in the current Assemby resulting from the current rules. The idea of a proportional representation system is interesting, but the mechanics and details of the system will present both drafting and constitutional questions. I haven't done any detailed research on teh matter, but I seem to recall some Supreme Court cases dealing with proportional representation.
One interesting impact to study would be the impact of a proportional representation system on the parties. In European countries, the parties tend to be much more powerful. Lots of interesting stuff to consider in this light.
One thing this citizen's assembly needs to rein in is the use of the ballot question process. In California, it has become a joke and has done more to hamstring the government in the state than any other facet of their governing system.
No comments:
Post a Comment