[fasterik]

What you describe as "single-party government" is in fact a democracy where one party is more popular than the others. Or are you trying to imply that California's elections are not free and fair? If voters want to hold politicians accountable, they can vote out the incumbent.

I see it as a problem primarily with education and public opinion. Regular citizens routinely support bad policies across the ideological spectrum. Often we have to live with the fact that bad policies are popular; that's democracy in action.

It's also a problem of having no good alternatives. There are historical reasons, going back to the 1960s, why the Democratic party is perceived as the lesser of two evils when it comes to civil liberties.

[dlcarrier]

It doesn't matter how a single party came to run the government, but being the case that it is, there's few checks and balances on the party, so it makes bad decisions it wouldn't have made if it had competition.

Chances are it will eventually be run so poorly that it is no longer unopposed, but the system doesn't guarantee that it is quick.

[nullc]

> Or are you trying to imply that California's elections are not free and fair

Among other issues California is extensively gerrymandered, and recently voted to temporary disable the anti-gerrymandering constutional provisions to allow it to make changes that would have been unlawful under the state constitution and become one of the most gerrymandered states in the nation for congressional districts (in terms of ratio of party seats vs party registrations).

While departing from California deregistering from both health insurance and my drivers licensed triggered voter registration even though I'd specifically indicated that I was no longer a California resident. Vote by mail makes it easy for someone to drive a neighborhood and steal ballots, makes it trivial family members to coerce votes out of each other or simply take their family members votes.

The freeness and fairness of California elections are not difficult to take issue with.

> There are historical reasons, going back to the 1960s, why the Democratic party is perceived as the lesser of two evils when it comes to civil liberties

The democratic party of today is a very different one that the party of the 1960s or even 1990s and is much less well aligned with civil liberties than it used to be, lesser or not depends on what aspects you prioritize but whichever way you slice it today it's a party which is generally opposed to civil liberties including the most critical of them: freedom of expression.

> Often we have to live with the fact that bad policies are popular; that's democracy in action.

The US was constructed as a democratic republic specifically to avoid the tyrany of majority rule.

> If voters want to hold politicians accountable, they can vote out the incumbent.

Or-- more effectively-- move to a state with more competent policies.

[nradov]

I never claimed that the elections were fraudulent.

[hunterpayne]

You don't follow politics in CA very closely if you think that. The way it works in CA is that the party makes sure that only 1 candidate runs in the Dem primary. Then they gerrymander the districts to make sure that they know which party will win in which district. The result of this is that the party insiders choose the politicians, not the voters.

PS Nobody in their right mind thinks the Dems support civil liberties. You just wish that was true and/or live in a bubble.

[fasterik]

According to the Princeton Gerrymandering project, California's districts are better than average, with some bias. You can see a map of the entire U.S. on their front page.

https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/

Before the recent wave of gerrymandering started by Texas, California had an independent, non-partisan redistricting committee.

Could you provide a source for the claim that before 2025, there was significant gerrymandering in California?

As I said about civil liberties, there is a perception that Democrats are the lesser of two evils, given the realignment of the parties around segregation and civil rights in the 1960s. The Dixiecrats who were in favor of segregation left the Democratic party, while Republicans who favored racial integration joined the Democratic party. Then the Republican presidential campaigns of Goldwater, Nixon, and Regan shifted the party line to appeal more to the former Dixiecrats in the South. I'm agnostic about which party is better on civil liberties in 2025; I'd be interested in any research on the topic.

[hunterpayne]

When you hit China, stop digging...you clearly have never lived in CA and know nothing of its politics.

[some_random]

I don't know how this value is calculated but a glance at the districts immediately tells me that it's full of shit.

https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/...