10/31   So the LA Times and SF Chron have endorsed prop 77.  How do you feel
        about the prop? -emarkp
        \_ I like some ideas in it.  I don't like the implementation.  It
           would have been easy for them to put this up and push it through
           if they didn't implement the first round without voter approval
           and outside the standard census cycle.  Or if not easy, at least
           I'd be able to give my support.  --scotsman
           \_ What about the implementation don't you like? -emarkp
              \_ Just what I said above.  It's redistricting outside of the
                 normal cycle, and the first time 'round it goes into effect
                 without being approved by the voters. --scotsman
                 \_ I'm not sure what you mean by "goes into effect
                    without being approved by the voters."  Do you mean
                    the council of judges would normally be approved in an
                    election, and won't be the first time around? -jrleek
                    \_ The map they would draw would be in effect in 2006,
                       in the same election that the voters approved said map.
        \_ I voted for it. -ausman
        \_ I think it's six of one, half dozen of the other.  The problem
           of incumbency has little to do with how the districts are drawn.
             -tom
        \_ Opposed. It's not a solution, it's appointing a tribunal to come
           up with a solution. I want this redistricting reformed, but this
           does nothing to actually do this. --erikred
           \_ Right now the legislature draws its own boundaries.  How would
              you suggest improving it? -emarkp
              \_ Mathematical formula based on population. Follow the
                 guidelines currently provided re: not splitting up counties
                 or cities too much. --erikred
                 \_ This is something that's been bugging me about the whole
                    discussion.  The main argument I hear for supporting it is
                    "no seats changed hands last time".  This is insufficient
                    to convince me that there's a problem with the current
                    map.  Based on that, it's a big leap for me to conclude
                    that the system to draw the map has pressing problems.
                    --scotsman
                 \_ Okay, so you like the proposed rules but want to remove
                    people from the process?  I'd agree with that, though I'd
                    want the algorithm and implementation public and
                    reviewable.  Short of that, the rules for choosing the
                    judges are pretty strict and I see this as a reasonable
                    solution. -emarkp
                    \_ The idea of appointing three formerly partisan judges
                       by random lot sounds like an unnecessarily complication.
                       Propose a solution, not a method for designing a
                       solution that's more complicated and just as open to
                       corruption as the current one. --erikred
        \_ I'm voting for it. It's clearly better than what we have now. In
           fact I'm voting for all of 74-77. The arguments above against it
           don't mean anything to me. Prop 77 is easily understood and
           likely to have reasonable results. Anything to light a bit more
           fire under politician asses.
        \_ Even though it comes from Ah-nold "The Groper" Schwarzenegger,
           I was for it a few months ago and I'm still for it.
           -moderate/liberal
           fact I'm voting for all of 74-77.
        \_ If Judge Wapner is against it, then so am I!
           \_ those ads actually cemented my position in favor...
           \- so what is the rationale for it being all judges
              rather than say statisticians or political scientists
              or other technical people. what is the "objective
              function" the implementors will be given?
                \_ The whole job of a judge is to be as fair as possible.
                   \- gee the whole job of a mathematician is truth.
                      \_ you confuse fairness with truth.  they are not the
                         same.  only one requires wisdom.
                         \- well this is all meaningless without some sense
                            of the objective function. how do you decide
                            whether map A or map B is "better"?
                            \_ "better" is defined by "just" and "fair".  that
                               is what judges are supposed to do.  if not
                               people we trust with our justice system every
                               day, then who?  mathematicians?  hah!
                            \_ I think it's funny that my comment about judges
                               being a better judge of fairness than
                               mathematicians got censored.
                            \_ Judges are also supposed to be wise, which means
                               they would rely on expert statisticians for the
                               math bits.