Amendments Y & Z (move to, rated, best)

[SkyDog77]

How are you voting on these two? They are aimed at curbing gerrymandering of congressional districts by either party. These seem like a good idea to me.

https://coloradosun.com/2018/10/28/a...s-y-z-opinion/

[bluescreen73]

It's not perfect, but it's better than letting judges decide. I voted yes on both even though I think it dilutes third-party representation on the panels.

[Joey2k]

I voted no. We need a better method, but I don't like this one. With modern technology there is no reason why districts cannot be drawn up by a computer program that makes them as compact and uniform in shape as possible while having roughly the same population...with human oversight, of course.

(I probably didn't word that well, but hopefully you know what I mean)

[emm74]

I voted yes - why not at least try something different rather than ending up in court again?

And compact and uniform is not a realistic goal - people vote, not landmass. The districts need to reflect population density, and will never be compact in most of the state. The issue is where the boundaries are, not the size and shape of the district.

Plus what goes around comes around. Dems have the advantage now, but in a decade? Who knows? It's kind of like the way you have two kids split the last piece of cake - one cuts it in half, the other one gets to choose which half. That way, the incentive is there to keep it as even as possible.

[history nerd]

Originally Posted by Joey2k

I voted no. We need a better method, but I don't like this one. With modern technology there is no reason why districts cannot be drawn up by a computer program that makes them as compact and uniform in shape as possible while having roughly the same population...with human oversight, of course.

(I probably didn't word that well, but hopefully you know what I mean)

Districts don't represent anything and computer generated ones will be even less meaningful. I would say switch to party list proportional representation if it were constitutional.

[Phil P]

Originally Posted by history nerd

Districts don't represent anything and computer generated ones will be even less meaningful. I would say switch to party list proportional representation if it were constitutional.

This is ultimately the best answer. But only Nebraska is apparently progressive enough to do something like this.

I voted for them as I figured they would be a step in the right direction. I don't think they could make it worse than the existing system and the new process could potentially be much better. I don't think a computer model would get rid of any ulterior motives because those motives would just be baked into the procedural rules of the program.

[pikabike]

Sigh. Wading through the ballot to decide on justice and judge retention questions, my only remaining unfilled items. At least the blue book has some info on those. The rest of the Qs mean studying the blue book AND looking up online sites and other materials. And, of course, trying to think of what scenarios could play out with any changes, either good or bad.

I am afraid that all future ballots will require increasingly long and careful studying, something that I think people are increasingly less willing or able to do!

[emm74]

I can't imagine just walking into a polling place and making it through this ballot without a cheat sheet.

[Westerner92]

I’m voting yes. I would prefer we move to proportional representation, but if we’re going to have geographically based districts, they should follow existing political boundaries. Our current way of drawing political boundaries with no regard to existing boundaries causes way too much headache and can easily overwhelm and disenfranchise voters IMO.

[BarryK123]

Some things should be voted on by knowledgeable peers, not the public. I leave all that judge nonsense blank. Same with coroner, etc.