I don't attempt to say anything about what you derogatorily call the "golden age". What I will say is that both Quan and Schaff were less than stellar managers of their civic duties. The ranked system was designed in part to stop runoffs and causing expense. In my mind (and apparently not yours, and you're entitled to your opinion jus…
I don't attempt to say anything about what you derogatorily call the "golden age". What I will say is that both Quan and Schaff were less than stellar managers of their civic duties. The ranked system was designed in part to stop runoffs and causing expense. In my mind (and apparently not yours, and you're entitled to your opinion just as I am mine) this was a cure whose result has been less than satisfying.
A ranked-choice system is intended to provide voters with more agency, not to guarantee the competence of the election victors. I'm not proposing the reform as a panacea. And you might want to read my adjacent comments, about the additional complications of ranking more than two choices. Because that feature really is worthy of more discussion, in my opinion.
Since you're in California, I'll tell you about a ballot reform that I view as questionable: the "two highest vote getters in the primaries get pitted against each other in the general election" ballot.
I moved out of the state before that was enacted, and I'm also just writing this off the cuff without research- but is that really the way it is for California Senatorial elections these days? That's my impression. If that's the actual case, it's just detestable.
If I'm wrong, correct me. Please, tell me that it isn't so.
I left in 2005. I wish I was still there; the societal openness is incomparably superior to most other places I've been. (Army brat, and a tumbling tumbleweed all my life.) Not in an especially sordid way, either; this is a decadent era, but California is a lot less decadent than some places I can name. The character of most of the locals is resilient and resourceful and optimistic.
But yes, from what I've heard and read California politics is woefully unbalanced. And I anticipate a reckoning, if the bliss ninny faction doesn't get its act together.
California has regressed to a two-tier society - the rich and the poor. The middle class has abandoned the state. Ponder that while you assess the partisan environment there. I have yet to see any state with a political monoculture that was healthy or interesting.
"California has regressed to a two-tier society - the rich and the poor. The middle class has abandoned the state."
That's an absurd claim. Of the sort most often made by people who don't live there.
"I have yet to see any state with a political monoculture that was healthy or interesting."
That accords with the gist of my own observation, as made in the post to which you responded. Ironcially, while supermajorities tend to be unhealthy and all too easily entrenched in State legislatures, it's gotten to be the case that they're practically mandatory at the national level in order to get anything done in Congress. This has resulted from the de facto state of affairs of the minority party demanding that ALL of the compromise come from the other side, the majority. Or else they'll throw a tantrum and shut down the Federal government.
Which is to say that there's more than one way to achieve a "political monoculture."
I was born and raised there. I watched it happen over the course of 50 plus years. I moved out and when I returned the difference was noticeable. I decamped for good 7 years ago.
I've returned to the state since then. I communicate with my "middle class" friends who live there. None of them are expressing a dread of being reduced to penury and serfdom.
You're exaggerating for the purpose of ideological axe-grinding. I'm weary of that gambit. I'm okay with pursuing an unsparing discussion, but it needs to be done of the basis of good faith and a perspective that's balanced and honest.
It's no secret that the housing rent is too high in much of California (as it is in much of the rest of the nation that hasn't been hollowed out by industries privatizing the benefits of globalization, and then leaving the human costs to be socialized, in a country with no safety net for the workers deprived on a livelihood overnight.) But it's been that way for decades. Service workers in the San Luis Obispo area were living in their vans 35 years ago. UC Berkeley students were living in one-room subdivided basements and storage closets next to garages 30 years ago. This was going on as far back as the Deukmejian and Wilson administrations, with divided rule in the legislatures. So don't snow me.
It's your hyperbole that I take issue with. "Two-tier society" is a phrase associated with nations led by self-dealing plutocrats and their cronies, who largely comprise the wealthy class- a small single-digit percentage of the total population- surrounded by masses of the poverty-stricken, living without basic features of modern materially developed culture, like running water or electricity.
Despite the fact that the California population has doubled since 1970- a 100% increase, compared with the 60% increase in the total US population- it's still mostly a state largely comprised of of productive middle-class households. The unhoused population has grown, but much of that has to do with the fact that any American who can afford a bus ticket or scrounge a ride can move there, bringing their problems with them.
I think of moving to a new location as a deal: you're supposed to bring more to the table than you take away. Not everyone has that attitude; they imagine that they're entitled to a life of ease and comfort, even if they're burdening their new neighbors rather than pitching in to contribute. That's been a chronic problem for California since the 1960s, when the word first got out about the place.
What is middle class in California is upper middle class just about anywhere else in the country. What is middle class in most of the country would be struggling to survive in California. Some very good info here - particularly when you get to the share of total income taxes - those with incomes under $100K pay only 10% of the total tax burden. From 100K-200K is another 18%. The rest is collected from even higher incomes.
I don't attempt to say anything about what you derogatorily call the "golden age". What I will say is that both Quan and Schaff were less than stellar managers of their civic duties. The ranked system was designed in part to stop runoffs and causing expense. In my mind (and apparently not yours, and you're entitled to your opinion just as I am mine) this was a cure whose result has been less than satisfying.
A ranked-choice system is intended to provide voters with more agency, not to guarantee the competence of the election victors. I'm not proposing the reform as a panacea. And you might want to read my adjacent comments, about the additional complications of ranking more than two choices. Because that feature really is worthy of more discussion, in my opinion.
Since you're in California, I'll tell you about a ballot reform that I view as questionable: the "two highest vote getters in the primaries get pitted against each other in the general election" ballot.
I moved out of the state before that was enacted, and I'm also just writing this off the cuff without research- but is that really the way it is for California Senatorial elections these days? That's my impression. If that's the actual case, it's just detestable.
If I'm wrong, correct me. Please, tell me that it isn't so.
Only the state elections are done this way - not the federal. The system has pushed Sacramento rapidly left.
Also, I left the state 4 years ago to escape the lunacy
I left in 2005. I wish I was still there; the societal openness is incomparably superior to most other places I've been. (Army brat, and a tumbling tumbleweed all my life.) Not in an especially sordid way, either; this is a decadent era, but California is a lot less decadent than some places I can name. The character of most of the locals is resilient and resourceful and optimistic.
But yes, from what I've heard and read California politics is woefully unbalanced. And I anticipate a reckoning, if the bliss ninny faction doesn't get its act together.
California has regressed to a two-tier society - the rich and the poor. The middle class has abandoned the state. Ponder that while you assess the partisan environment there. I have yet to see any state with a political monoculture that was healthy or interesting.
"California has regressed to a two-tier society - the rich and the poor. The middle class has abandoned the state."
That's an absurd claim. Of the sort most often made by people who don't live there.
"I have yet to see any state with a political monoculture that was healthy or interesting."
That accords with the gist of my own observation, as made in the post to which you responded. Ironcially, while supermajorities tend to be unhealthy and all too easily entrenched in State legislatures, it's gotten to be the case that they're practically mandatory at the national level in order to get anything done in Congress. This has resulted from the de facto state of affairs of the minority party demanding that ALL of the compromise come from the other side, the majority. Or else they'll throw a tantrum and shut down the Federal government.
Which is to say that there's more than one way to achieve a "political monoculture."
I was born and raised there. I watched it happen over the course of 50 plus years. I moved out and when I returned the difference was noticeable. I decamped for good 7 years ago.
I've returned to the state since then. I communicate with my "middle class" friends who live there. None of them are expressing a dread of being reduced to penury and serfdom.
You're exaggerating for the purpose of ideological axe-grinding. I'm weary of that gambit. I'm okay with pursuing an unsparing discussion, but it needs to be done of the basis of good faith and a perspective that's balanced and honest.
It's no secret that the housing rent is too high in much of California (as it is in much of the rest of the nation that hasn't been hollowed out by industries privatizing the benefits of globalization, and then leaving the human costs to be socialized, in a country with no safety net for the workers deprived on a livelihood overnight.) But it's been that way for decades. Service workers in the San Luis Obispo area were living in their vans 35 years ago. UC Berkeley students were living in one-room subdivided basements and storage closets next to garages 30 years ago. This was going on as far back as the Deukmejian and Wilson administrations, with divided rule in the legislatures. So don't snow me.
Kiddo, I have the personal experience of improving my monthly finances by not being in that state any longer. Delude yourself all you like.
I get how that is possible- probable, even.
It's your hyperbole that I take issue with. "Two-tier society" is a phrase associated with nations led by self-dealing plutocrats and their cronies, who largely comprise the wealthy class- a small single-digit percentage of the total population- surrounded by masses of the poverty-stricken, living without basic features of modern materially developed culture, like running water or electricity.
Despite the fact that the California population has doubled since 1970- a 100% increase, compared with the 60% increase in the total US population- it's still mostly a state largely comprised of of productive middle-class households. The unhoused population has grown, but much of that has to do with the fact that any American who can afford a bus ticket or scrounge a ride can move there, bringing their problems with them.
I think of moving to a new location as a deal: you're supposed to bring more to the table than you take away. Not everyone has that attitude; they imagine that they're entitled to a life of ease and comfort, even if they're burdening their new neighbors rather than pitching in to contribute. That's been a chronic problem for California since the 1960s, when the word first got out about the place.
What is middle class in California is upper middle class just about anywhere else in the country. What is middle class in most of the country would be struggling to survive in California. Some very good info here - particularly when you get to the share of total income taxes - those with incomes under $100K pay only 10% of the total tax burden. From 100K-200K is another 18%. The rest is collected from even higher incomes.
https://calmatters.org/explainers/the-open-secret-about-california-taxes/