Leave Redistricting to Elected Representatives

"The California Voters First Initiative would take the redistricting process out of the hands of state legislators and put it under the control of an independent committee."

I would much rather have our elected representatives in the state legislature draw districts then leave it to an "independent" committee that is not representative of California.

The proponents of this Initiative know well that taking the process out of the hands of our elected representatives usurps residents of California and our democratic form of government.

I'm disapointed that my retired political science professor and Whittier city councilman Owen Newcomer would back such initiative. By supporting this initiative he is taking the process out of the hands of the people and giving it to an elite group of people not representative of our diverse population of California.

Our representative form of democracy should not be substituted for a committee of political appointments who were not directly elected by the people of California. If a community does like its representative they can vote them out. In the case of a committee of elites, we can not vote them out and there is no mechanism to do so should the people disagree with their decision.

Stick to our elected legislature who we can hold accountable at the local level and not a group of unaccountable elitist.

The State of Ward Republics in America

Thomas Jefferson believed that democracy in America is best represented at the local level (ward republics) where citizens govern themselves and live inter-dependently (in collaboration with each other).

I too have subscribed to this idea since my teens age years reading Jefferson, Rousseau's "The Social Contract" and other political philosophy.

This Presidential Primary cycle gives me great hope and concern. The possibility of either an African-American or woman brings me closer to the idea of equal opportunity in America.

However, I'm also growing concern for how our democracy or the idea of democracy may be or not shifting at the local level. As Jefferson argued, the small local ward republic is reflective of the federal/national state of democracy. If this is true, my concern is that I observe not a shift in ideas, but just the same "old" Machiavellian practice of the group fight and hoarding of resources.

Perhaps I'm viewing this too idealistically. To anticipate and get caught in the fervor of an ideological revolution may be placing too many expectations on "change". I understand realism in politics, but is this really "change"?

I see no "change" at the local levels. What I observe is the realist opportunism that can be a plague if not checked. My observation is the Democratic Presidential Campaigns at the local levels are not representative of the movement and ideas they purport. The Presidential Caucuses where strangely awkward.

Is there such thing as "unity" when people ideologicly akin are tearing each other apart? What I believe as ideology transcending race and culture may not be that at all. In my local ward-republic and what I observed in the Iowa Caucuses was not “unity” or “change”. What was it?

I do observe some believers in the “movement”. They deserve every encouragement and should be brought into the process so that they might actually be the ones down the road instituting “change”. I will do my best to help them get on the ship.

However, there were also acute opportunist using the “movement” to solely help themselves or engaging in cultural elitism. “I’m bring in my own group in and the rest of you will have to sit back and be governed by us” attitude.

Ok, I believe that “change” may bring change in the wealth structure in America and create greater access to opportunity for those who have not been included. Am I wrong? Could it just be one elitist group versus another elitist group?

I feel something is not right in our wards republics.