<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Dem 2/3 Dominance in 2012?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://calwatchdog.com/2011/05/16/dem-23-legislative-dominance-in-2012/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/05/16/dem-23-legislative-dominance-in-2012/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 23:54:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Cicero		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/05/16/dem-23-legislative-dominance-in-2012/#comment-5022</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cicero]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 23:54:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=17701#comment-5022</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Our problem comes from an insane view of elections - - - the silly single member districts that can be easily gerrymandered.

Many nations around the world use simple proportional representation.  The German state of Bavaria is a good example.  If your party gets 35% of the vote you get about 35% of the seats.  Even graduates of L.A. Unified can do the math.

2010 ASSEMBLY RESULTS:  In statewide votes the split was Democrats 54% and Republican nearly 44%. The rest going to small parties.

Using proportional representation the GOP would have 44% of the seats in the Assembly.  A fair result that mirrors the votes cast.

Election reform now.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our problem comes from an insane view of elections &#8211; &#8211; &#8211; the silly single member districts that can be easily gerrymandered.</p>
<p>Many nations around the world use simple proportional representation.  The German state of Bavaria is a good example.  If your party gets 35% of the vote you get about 35% of the seats.  Even graduates of L.A. Unified can do the math.</p>
<p>2010 ASSEMBLY RESULTS:  In statewide votes the split was Democrats 54% and Republican nearly 44%. The rest going to small parties.</p>
<p>Using proportional representation the GOP would have 44% of the seats in the Assembly.  A fair result that mirrors the votes cast.</p>
<p>Election reform now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Tylerle13		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/05/16/dem-23-legislative-dominance-in-2012/#comment-5021</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tylerle13]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 22:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=17701#comment-5021</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I don’t think splitting the state in half would accomplish much since there are 2 socialist hot spots in the state. The new Northern CA would still be stuck listening to the never-ending whining for more nanny laws coming from SF, and the new Southern CA would still be stuck with the pretentious a-holes that run the freak show known as LA. Having to deal with 1 California is bad enough, I don’t think the world could handle it if our state started to reproduce.


A better option may be to declare SF &#038; LA Principalities or Territories. That way they can do whatever crazy crap they dream up in their own little area without screwing up an entire state.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don’t think splitting the state in half would accomplish much since there are 2 socialist hot spots in the state. The new Northern CA would still be stuck listening to the never-ending whining for more nanny laws coming from SF, and the new Southern CA would still be stuck with the pretentious a-holes that run the freak show known as LA. Having to deal with 1 California is bad enough, I don’t think the world could handle it if our state started to reproduce.</p>
<p>A better option may be to declare SF &amp; LA Principalities or Territories. That way they can do whatever crazy crap they dream up in their own little area without screwing up an entire state.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: David in Irvine		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/05/16/dem-23-legislative-dominance-in-2012/#comment-5020</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[David in Irvine]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 19:46:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=17701#comment-5020</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not sure that the split would be strictly along ethnic lines. At some point the Hispanic population will splinter between gov&#039;t clients and gov&#039;t. employees on one side and working and middle class Reagan Democrats on the other. If more cities like Costa Mesa succeed in outsourcing things like park and landscape maintenance, is the ethnic affinity of those workers so strong that employees of contractors will have the same interests as public employees doing the same thing? The Dems. will also start losing support among professionals and private sector Reagan Democrats who finally see through the fog of social issues to their own economic interests. A lot of them seem to be getting the point that supporting public schools is not the same thing as backing teachers&#039; union demands.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not sure that the split would be strictly along ethnic lines. At some point the Hispanic population will splinter between gov&#8217;t clients and gov&#8217;t. employees on one side and working and middle class Reagan Democrats on the other. If more cities like Costa Mesa succeed in outsourcing things like park and landscape maintenance, is the ethnic affinity of those workers so strong that employees of contractors will have the same interests as public employees doing the same thing? The Dems. will also start losing support among professionals and private sector Reagan Democrats who finally see through the fog of social issues to their own economic interests. A lot of them seem to be getting the point that supporting public schools is not the same thing as backing teachers&#8217; union demands.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Sol		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/05/16/dem-23-legislative-dominance-in-2012/#comment-5019</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sol]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 19:44:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=17701#comment-5019</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Maybe this is what is needed to finally get people serious about splitting up the state.

When I bring this up, even with Republicans, people look at me like I am a space alien with 2 heads.

Cawleefornia (as Ahnode calls it) is already too big and is ungovernable.

Split Cawleefornia into 3 states: SF Bay Area, LA and the rest of California would each be a state.

Then the socialist can raise taxes as high as they want.  If SF wants a 20% sales tax and 30% income tax, great!  If LA wants higher gass taxes, go for it!

But no one seems interested in the idea of splitting up an ungovernable state.

Now I know how the only sane person in an asylum feels.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe this is what is needed to finally get people serious about splitting up the state.</p>
<p>When I bring this up, even with Republicans, people look at me like I am a space alien with 2 heads.</p>
<p>Cawleefornia (as Ahnode calls it) is already too big and is ungovernable.</p>
<p>Split Cawleefornia into 3 states: SF Bay Area, LA and the rest of California would each be a state.</p>
<p>Then the socialist can raise taxes as high as they want.  If SF wants a 20% sales tax and 30% income tax, great!  If LA wants higher gass taxes, go for it!</p>
<p>But no one seems interested in the idea of splitting up an ungovernable state.</p>
<p>Now I know how the only sane person in an asylum feels.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: CalWatchdog		</title>
		<link>https://calwatchdog.com/2011/05/16/dem-23-legislative-dominance-in-2012/#comment-5018</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CalWatchdog]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 May 2011 16:32:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.calwatchdog.com/?p=17701#comment-5018</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I agree that we are headed for two-thirds Democratic dominance. And we are already getting a taste of what happens with Dem dominance - really bad bills are making it through committees, the Senate and Assembly, and getting signed into law by Gov. Brown. The destruction will not be felt immediately, but will have lasting damage.

As for a Dem party split, it may take a while. I predict that in California the split will be among the Latino Democrats and the rest of the party.

- Katy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that we are headed for two-thirds Democratic dominance. And we are already getting a taste of what happens with Dem dominance &#8211; really bad bills are making it through committees, the Senate and Assembly, and getting signed into law by Gov. Brown. The destruction will not be felt immediately, but will have lasting damage.</p>
<p>As for a Dem party split, it may take a while. I predict that in California the split will be among the Latino Democrats and the rest of the party.</p>
<p>&#8211; Katy</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!--
Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: https://www.boldgrid.com/w3-total-cache/


Served from: calwatchdog.com @ 2026-04-19 19:13:54 by W3 Total Cache
-->