I find it very interesting that it was put up to a vote in California. In Texas, the legislators just took it upon themselves to cheat. “Going high” is going to bite the dems in the ass eventually, though.
Texas doesn’t allow for citizens to gather signatures to put something directly on the ballot. The politicians control everything.
CA citizens used a citizen-led ballot initiative to take the redistricting keys away from the legislature. Stuff like this has to go before voters in CA.
It HAD to go before a vote in Cali. We didn’t have a choice politically since our independent election map commission is enshrined into the state constitution. In Texas they don’t have anything remotely enshrined into their constitution so for us here in Cali we had to put it to the people and even then it’s sorta weak since it has an exact end date in 2030. It’s only here for one cycle before it falls off and goes back. Which could be dangerous if the other states don’t stop gerrymandering.
It’s preferable that it has an end date since it’s intentionally cheating the system for the greater good. I’d rather have it keep going up for a vote every 5 years so we can choose to put it back as needed.
No, they are cheating, just with the blessing of the public. Like gerrymandering isn’t a thing you should be able to do, fullstop, but it isn’t something normally possible to do in California.
Yes, there’s a California rule that states that redistricting is done by a non-partisan commission. This explicitly sidesteps that process. They’re breaking a rule with permission but they’re still breaking a rule.
If your DM rules that you can have two actions in a turn without reason, it’s still cheating.
I’d argue this is explicitly not cheating. Revising the rules though a democratic process IS democracy.
The D&D example is closer since it doesn’t explicitly call for buy-in from the whole table, but the first and only rule of D&D is to have fun with the DM being chief facilitator. The PHB and DMG are just suggestions. If this favoritism caused others in the party to feel slighted, then it would be ‘cheating’.
I find it very interesting that it was put up to a vote in California. In Texas, the legislators just took it upon themselves to cheat. “Going high” is going to bite the dems in the ass eventually, though.
Texas doesn’t allow for citizens to gather signatures to put something directly on the ballot. The politicians control everything.
CA citizens used a citizen-led ballot initiative to take the redistricting keys away from the legislature. Stuff like this has to go before voters in CA.
The people are more in control in CA.
Texas has gone so far right, they might as well be 100% in control of every thing a person does at this point.
Every prop appears to have passed yesterday, and only a few are good ideas.
It HAD to go before a vote in Cali. We didn’t have a choice politically since our independent election map commission is enshrined into the state constitution. In Texas they don’t have anything remotely enshrined into their constitution so for us here in Cali we had to put it to the people and even then it’s sorta weak since it has an exact end date in 2030. It’s only here for one cycle before it falls off and goes back. Which could be dangerous if the other states don’t stop gerrymandering.
That or we’ll just leave next time.
It’s preferable that it has an end date since it’s intentionally cheating the system for the greater good. I’d rather have it keep going up for a vote every 5 years so we can choose to put it back as needed.
“Going high”, in this case referring to using democratic principles to govern? That’s not going high, that’s how the system is supposed to work.
Things are so bad that ‘not cheating’ is taking the high road, yeah
No, they are cheating, just with the blessing of the public. Like gerrymandering isn’t a thing you should be able to do, fullstop, but it isn’t something normally possible to do in California.
Working within a broken system isn’t cheating though. Cheating means you’re breaking the rules.
Yes, there’s a California rule that states that redistricting is done by a non-partisan commission. This explicitly sidesteps that process. They’re breaking a rule with permission but they’re still breaking a rule.
If your DM rules that you can have two actions in a turn without reason, it’s still cheating.
I’d argue this is explicitly not cheating. Revising the rules though a democratic process IS democracy.
The D&D example is closer since it doesn’t explicitly call for buy-in from the whole table, but the first and only rule of D&D is to have fun with the DM being chief facilitator. The PHB and DMG are just suggestions. If this favoritism caused others in the party to feel slighted, then it would be ‘cheating’.