Fixing California

I have recently started watching a show on YouTube called California Insider.

This program discusses important issues which affect the citizens of California.

These issues also affect you in your state.

I’ve only seen five episodes, but I’ve seen enough to know that California has a systemic problem.

These five episodes have featured five separate issues covering fentanyl overdose, lack of proper water planning, homeless sewage seeping into the public water supply, homelessness affecting the safety of the citizenry, and massive organized crime theft from retail stores.

Each of these problems has arisen through poor leadership.

Leadership has either implemented poor law or planning which has led to these problems, or leadership has failed to listen to concerned citizens who wish to amend the law in order to fix the problem at hand.

Consequently, Californians are unnecessarily and increasingly exposed to an unsafe environment.

As your state grows in population, this is a problem that will be coming soon to you.

What is the solution?

It’s not as if the leadership in California has been confronted with these issues.

Citizens have petitioned the government to correct the law or planning process.

Currently the leadership in California places a greater priority on the rights of the homeless, the drug addicted, the criminal underclass, and rare species of animals than they do on the rights of hard-working Californians.

What to do?

Let’s begin by recognizing that because California’s population has roughly doubled in the last 50 to 70 years, the leadership has grown further away from regular people and regular thinking.

Remember, California only has one assemblyman for every 500,000 people. There are 80 assemblymen in California. The state senate representation is much worse. In California currently there are only 40 state senators to represent 40 million people.

(And no, there weren’t fewer assemblymen in 1970. See here.)

Hence, it is very difficult for one individual to know his assemblyman or senator.

The people who are more likely to know these representatives are activists from big organizations, heads of large corporations, lobbyists, and of course Hollywood personalities.

Because of this, Californians are often forced to govern by plebiscite (proposition).

A plebiscite (mob rule) is an extremely poor way to govern. A better way to govern is through proper representation.

But, the representatives have to be in touch with regular people and how they think.

That is sorely missing in California

Thus the system of how senators and state assemblyman are elected must be changed.

What I have recommended for years is to divide each assemblyman‘s district into nine subdistricts. The same can be done for the senator’s district.

In the case of assemblyman, these nine elected sub-assemblyman, will, then elect from amongst themselves a leader to represent the entire district within which their subdistrict rests.

This should provide the ticket to get better representation.

Through this indirect mechanism, it will be possible for an average citizen to know the guy who knows the guy who will be making law in California.

And that is infinitely better than never knowing the guy who makes the law.

It’s a mistake to believe that direct election of representatives is a superior method of representation.

It’s a mistake to believe,such because as the population grows to an unwieldy number it becomes more difficult for the average citizen to know his representative.

As the representative grows further and farther away from his people he becomes more prone to elitism and nutty thinking.

Indirect election brings that representative closer to reality. He begins to see who butters his bread.

That is a good thing.

It’s good for California.

It’s good for the people of the United States.

Initially, many years ago, this method of indirect election was the model your founding fathers set up for election of US senators.

Unfortunately, the oligarchy in the United States wanted to change that, and they did change that.

So now you elect your US senators through direct election.

The oligarchy fooled you into thinking that you get better representation that way.

But you don’t get better representation that way because you will likely never meet your US senator.

Prior to this change in the early 1900s, you could at least know the guy who knew the US senator.

You see, your US senator was chosen by your legislature, in order to represent the state, not the national consensus.

Now, that’s not possible.

Now, your US senator doesn’t give a damn what you think. He only cares what he or she perceives the national consensus to be.

And, the national consensus is determined by the oligarchy through their television programs and their talking heads.

Therefore, you have no say whatsoever.

Your US senator only pays you lip service.

That’s why, on the local level in California, the representation stinks.

That’s why on the local level in California the representatives don’t listen to their people except to pay lip service.

Clearly that must be fixed.

Sincerely,

Archer Crosley

Copyright 2023 Archer Crosley All Rights Reserved