Help me figure out Colorado Amendments Y and Z

[youngbuck]

I need help deciphering these two amendments, determining how I should vote. They're supposedly going to prevent gerrymandering, but I'm wondering if it's something sneaky and if there will unintended consequences as this state becomes more blue. I see a bunch of socialist organizations in support of them, and Michael Bloomberg donated $500k to both in support.

Amendment Y: Creates an independent commission for congressional districts

Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution concerning a change to the way that congressional districts are drawn, and, in connection therewith, taking the duty to draw congressional districts away from the state legislature and giving it to an independent commission, composed of twelve citizens who possess specified qualifications; prohibiting any one political party's control of the commission by requiring that one-third of commissioners will not be affiliated with any political party, one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's largest political party, and one-third of the commissioners will be affiliated with the state's second largest political party; prohibiting certain persons, including professional lobbyists, federal campaign committee employees, and federal, state, and local elected officials, from serving on the commission; limiting judicial review of a map to a determination by the supreme court of whether the commission or its nonpartisan staff committed an abuse of discretion; requiring the commission to draw districts with a focus on communities of interest and political subdivisions, such as cities and counties, and then to maximize the number of competitive congressional seats to the extent possible; and prohibiting maps from being drawn to dilute the electoral influence of any racial or ethnic group or to protect any incumbent, any political candidate, or any political party?

Amendment Z: Creates an independent commission for state legislative districts

Same as Y, but just for state.

[timosman]

one-third of commissioners will not be affiliated with any political party

:rolleyes:

[youngbuck]

:rolleyes:
I am very skeptical of that part.

[KEEF]

Similar thing in Michigan was going out for petition, I don’t think it made it on the ballot though. My thing with it was what was going to be the check and balance of the independent commission? So I didn’t sign the petition.

[Schifference]

Is it not wonderful that all voters take these decisions so seriously? It would be remiss to just vote without knowledge. That would be like writing a multi thousand page bill and thinking you need to pass it before you read it.

[shakey1]

Sounds ok on the surface, but you're right to be a bit skeptical.

[Pauls' Revere]

Why not just divide it up like a checker board. Colorado is rectangular so that would be easy. Just say there has to 100 equally sized squares throughout the state. Or some other number.

Saw a video of a guy who had a similar idea re: California. To get a better or more realistic map or boundaries representing the diversity in political views. He proposed drawing straight lines from the coast to the border of Nevada, latitudes. Some adjustment in width would be made due to population changes so there's equal population in each section. Say each section needs to represent a million people, then its adjusted accordingly.

But in this case I wonder how do they guarantee that these individuals truely have "No political affiliation"?

[spudea]

It's a trap with competing priorities, just another chance for 12 leeches to get a government salary and benefits. It won't solve gerrymandering, it's just another form of gerrymandering.

[youngbuck]

It's a trap with competing priorities, just another chance for 12 leeches to get a government salary and benefits. It won't solve gerrymandering, it's just another form of gerrymandering. With more thought, that's my conclusion. Pretty sure it will be former (liberal) judges who select the 12 (including the unaffiliated).

[Anti Federalist]

I see a bunch of socialist organizations in support of them, and Michael Bloomberg donated $500k to both in support.

That should tell you all you need to know.

Vote no.

[specsaregood]

That should tell you all you need to know.

Vote no.

makes sense, the democrats are still reeling from 2010 election when the tea party wave took control of most states in the year when redistricting was done. so they gerrymandered it in their favor.

[oyarde]

Y & Z ? So they have 24 others as well ?

[timosman]

I am very skeptical of that part.

Sounds good on paper! :D

[kpitcher]

Similar thing in Michigan was going out for petition, I don’t think it made it on the ballot though. My thing with it was what was going to be the check and balance of the independent commission? So I didn’t sign the petition.

It made it on the ballot

18-2

A proposed constitutional amendment to establish a commission of citizens with exclusive authority to adopt district boundaries for the Michigan Senate, Michigan House of Representatives and U.S. Congress, every 10 years


This proposed constitutional amendment would:
· Create a commission of 13 registered voters randomly selected by the Secretary of State:
- 4 each who self-identify as affiliated with the 2 major political parties; and
- 5 who self-identify as unaffiliated with major political parties
· Prohibit partisan officeholders and candidates, their employees, certain relatives, and lobbyists from serving as commissioners
· Establish new redistricting criteria including geographically compact and contiguous districts of equal population, reflecting Michigan's diverse population and communities of interest. Districts shall not provide disproportionate advantage to political parties or candidates.
· Require an appropriation of funds for commission operations and commissioner compensation.
Should this proposal be adopted?

[William Tell]

That should tell you all you need to know.

Vote no.This. It's about continuing the move away from a Republic into the 51% mob rule.

[Swordsmyth]

Why not just divide it up like a checker board. Colorado is rectangular so that would be easy. Just say there has to 100 equally sized squares throughout the state. Or some other number.

Saw a video of a guy who had a similar idea re: California. To get a better or more realistic map or boundaries representing the diversity in political views. He proposed drawing straight lines from the coast to the border of Nevada, latitudes. Some adjustment in width would be made due to population changes so there's equal population in each section. Say each section needs to represent a million people, then its adjusted accordingly.

But in this case I wonder how do they guarantee that these individuals truely have "No political affiliation"?
Because not every square would contain the same number of voters and the adjustments would invite gerrymandering.

[Swordsmyth]

Any such proposals are always bad.

[Swordsmyth]

A much better idea:

Why not give each Rep. multiple votes? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?504767-Why-not-give-each-Rep-multiple-votes)

[Pauls' Revere]

Because not every square would contain the same number of voters and the adjustments would invite gerrymandering.

Keep what we have but just divide the states up in longitude or latitude lines from one border to the other. Each section than represents a certain percentage of voters. So the sections in more rural areas would be bigger where as those over urban would be smaller. Same percentage of voters in each. And no you can't redraw the lines they have to be straight from one border to the other.

I'll see if I can find a youtube on that guy I saw. If there is one.

[KEEF]

It made it on the ballot

18-2

A proposed constitutional amendment to establish a commission of citizens with exclusive authority to adopt district boundaries for the Michigan Senate, Michigan House of Representatives and U.S. Congress, every 10 years


This proposed constitutional amendment would:
· Create a commission of 13 registered voters randomly selected by the Secretary of State:
- 4 each who self-identify as affiliated with the 2 major political parties; and
- 5 who self-identify as unaffiliated with major political parties
· Prohibit partisan officeholders and candidates, their employees, certain relatives, and lobbyists from serving as commissioners
· Establish new redistricting criteria including geographically compact and contiguous districts of equal population, reflecting Michigan's diverse population and communities of interest. Districts shall not provide disproportionate advantage to political parties or candidates.
· Require an appropriation of funds for commission operations and commissioner compensation.
Should this proposal be adopted?
Thanks for the info... dumb me hasn’t even looked at the ballot yet for this midterm.

[Swordsmyth]

Keep what we have but just divide the states up in longitude or latitude lines from one border to the other. Each section than represents a certain percentage of voters. So the sections in more rural areas would be bigger where as those over urban would be smaller. Same percentage of voters in each. And no you can't redraw the lines they have to be straight from one border to the other.

I'll see if I can find a youtube on that guy I saw. If there is one.

I'd have to see an example because I don't understand how you can have squares of randomly different sizes tessellate.

[Pauls' Revere]

I'd have to see an example because I don't understand how you can have squares of randomly different sizes tessellate.

LOL tessellate :) , perhaps not squares but straight vertical or horizontal lines. number of sections for each rep. Ten reps, ten sections, and each section represents an equl percentage of the population. Some sections are bigger than others but the proportionallity to population would be similar.

[Swordsmyth]

LOL tessellate :) , perhaps not squares but straight vertical or horizontal lines. number of sections for each rep. Ten reps, ten sections, and each section represents an equal percentage of the population. Some sections are bigger than others but the proportionallity to population would be similar.
That might work if the smallest segments were wide enough to be practical but it would destroy the point of having regional representation in large states, I like having all seats up for grabs state wide and allowing each candidate to win multiple seats like I discuss in the thread I posted above.