I don’t think this comment is accurate? There actually is a pretty big moderate Democratic contingent in the legislature, and the progressive caucus here is more mainline Democratic than “left-wing.” For example, progressive caucus members wouldn’t go along with a plan for single-payer healthcare because of cost concerns.
I don’t think this comment is accurate? There actually is a pretty big moderate Democratic contingent in the legislature, and the progressive caucus here is more mainline Democratic than “left-wing.” For example, progressive caucus members wouldn’t go along with a plan for single-payer healthcare because of cost concerns.
Maybe there are a decent chunk of left-wing voters, but it’s really not reflected in our politicians, and that’s arguably why Democrats have held such a tight grip on the legislature for awhile now. It’s also part of why we haven’t seen much in the way of big, structural changes…another reason for that, frankly, is Newsom.
If you look at the graph on page 6, The CA Dems are the furthest to left of any State and the CA GOP is the furthest to the right of any State, except Texas and Oklahoma.
Though the other axis of the graph shows that CA voters are actually further left and and further right than their lawmakers! Hence your perception that legislature is moderate.
I would question the methodology being applied here. Oftentimes this is a measurement of legislation being proposed. If the legislature is only proposing moderate reforms, and the Republicans in the state are reflexively opposing them for strategic reasons, it would skew the analysis completely.
As someone who lives in the state, I can assure you that the Democratic politicians here skew moderate.
While I agree that rollcall votes can be a somewhat limited measure of ideology, (looking at bills introduced or sponsored tends to be more reliable,) "reflexively opposing [all bills] for strategic reasons" is a sign of a polarized legislature. That does not happen in Massachusetts, where I live. Even though the Republicans are in a deep minority, they work together with the majority on legislation.
The redistricting commission might have by virtue of creating more tossup districts (although this is true anywhere, and not unique to California), but the top 2 did not. I can't think of a prominent example where a super left-wing Dem and a super right-wing Repub both ran for a seat but a moderate Dem won by tacking to the middle. There are, however, examples of one party getting shut out of a general election due to the math of mutiple candidates running at once, but that has nothing to do with ideology. My prediction is that one of these days, two Republicans will sneak into a statewide office due to too many candidates running, and then voters will repeal this awful idea.
I don’t think this comment is accurate? There actually is a pretty big moderate Democratic contingent in the legislature, and the progressive caucus here is more mainline Democratic than “left-wing.” For example, progressive caucus members wouldn’t go along with a plan for single-payer healthcare because of cost concerns.
Maybe there are a decent chunk of left-wing voters, but it’s really not reflected in our politicians, and that’s arguably why Democrats have held such a tight grip on the legislature for awhile now. It’s also part of why we haven’t seen much in the way of big, structural changes…another reason for that, frankly, is Newsom.
Statistical measures of polarization has California quite high. For example:
https://research.bshor.com/publication/polarization_2decades/polarization_2decades.pdf
If you look at the graph on page 6, The CA Dems are the furthest to left of any State and the CA GOP is the furthest to the right of any State, except Texas and Oklahoma.
Though the other axis of the graph shows that CA voters are actually further left and and further right than their lawmakers! Hence your perception that legislature is moderate.
California legislature: Extremely polarized
California voters: Even more polarized
I would question the methodology being applied here. Oftentimes this is a measurement of legislation being proposed. If the legislature is only proposing moderate reforms, and the Republicans in the state are reflexively opposing them for strategic reasons, it would skew the analysis completely.
As someone who lives in the state, I can assure you that the Democratic politicians here skew moderate.
While I agree that rollcall votes can be a somewhat limited measure of ideology, (looking at bills introduced or sponsored tends to be more reliable,) "reflexively opposing [all bills] for strategic reasons" is a sign of a polarized legislature. That does not happen in Massachusetts, where I live. Even though the Republicans are in a deep minority, they work together with the majority on legislation.
The redistricting commission might have by virtue of creating more tossup districts (although this is true anywhere, and not unique to California), but the top 2 did not. I can't think of a prominent example where a super left-wing Dem and a super right-wing Repub both ran for a seat but a moderate Dem won by tacking to the middle. There are, however, examples of one party getting shut out of a general election due to the math of mutiple candidates running at once, but that has nothing to do with ideology. My prediction is that one of these days, two Republicans will sneak into a statewide office due to too many candidates running, and then voters will repeal this awful idea.
You are most likely correct but I am hoping the legislature will try a preemptive fix