Here's a public interest guide from Fair Vote

Redistricting can be done fairly and without partisan influences. It is not easy.

But, I think there's more to them being in power than good message.  There are many many different levers of power in American politics and message is just one of them.  

We can concentrate on our message, but we also need to watch our backs for attacks from the right on the fundamentals... GOTV, redistricting, legislating, agenda-setting, etc.

Arnold's plan isn't fair, and it's certain to hurt Democrats.  I'm just nervous because there's a LOT at stake on this one.

Let's keep it simple:

You're for Proposition 77, I'm not, it's a flawed proposal backed by Arnold and the GOP.  There's a way to do redistricting reform in California, this isn't it.

Further, as a Democrat, I'm for fighting GOP proposals, on the merits and on principle and just because...because the GOP never plays fair, has always got ulterior motives and shady financial backing from big money, and does not have the interest of our constituents at heart, whatever lip service they pay to think tank generated astro turf ideals.

When you say:  "We have no business using gerrymandering to try to get back in power. "

You are ceding huge points to Arnold.  What gerrymandering?  Why do you keep bringing it up if you don't think there's a problem with the current CA map?  Those are GOP talking points, and, need I point out they are the ones trying to change things now, not us.  

You say take you want to take the "high ground" on redisricting and then write:

"What is the Democratic Party's message to these poor and minority voters who can't move to the suburbs?  "We can help you stay poor"?  "We can help you remain ghettoized"?  Or maybe, "We can help you get ahead so you can move to the suburbs and become Republicans"????"

Basically, that just takes more biased rhetoric straight from the GOP, and makes me scratch my head.  Whatever ironic spin you're putting on this, that's not our message to our voters and never has been.

We Democrats have distinct and different views on social security, education, health care, fiscal responsiblity, progressive taxation, mass transportation and the environment that benefit everyone, with a capital E.

My politics is to build coalition between the self interests of urban democrats, of which I'm one, and folks in the suburbs and rural areas of all political persuasions. ie. pragmatic alliance building based on mutual self-interest.

Is it a reality that race and class keep many folks locked in the cities?  Hell yes.  I've seen it, and written about it.

My point is, one essential thing about partisan politics is that we fight for our people.  I draw the definition of our people with a very wide brush, but it most certainly includes the voters who live and work in cities and give their votes overwhelmingly to the Democratic Party.

When jefe writes:

"It's a classic Republican gerrymander.  Pack all the Democrats into a few heavily Democratic districts, leaving Republicans with slight edges in the majority of seats."

That describes exactly the situation that gives the GOP a huge edge in "lean Republican districts" in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida.  And that situation works against all Americans, and has helped give all of us a Congress of GOP right wing clones.  We Deomcrats could do much better in those four states with fair map that allowed our cities to share a district with their suburbs.

There is NOTHING wrong with the idea that urban democrats, oftentimes kept in cities due to racism and economic barriers to mobility, should not SHARE a Congressperson with wealthier suburban neighbors.  NOTHING.

In fact, that is exactly the kind of coaltion-building that I advocate.

It's a lot harder to call someone a "ghetto-dweller" when we are sitting in the same room.  And when we DO sit in the same room, and talk it out, we realize that you have a great deal of poltiics in common.

Bottom line, I'm for saying NO to Arnie in November.

The experience of voting patterns does not support you. The urban/suburban split is nearly universal from everything I've read. Urban centers are the economic hub that suburban voters travel to every day to work. They go to the city for recreation on weekends. They have all of the advantages an urban center has to offer, and don't have to pay for the infrastructure that supports those amenities.

A number of cities are trying different methods of taxing suburban commuters for the services they receive and meeting a lot of opposition from the suburbs in their legislatures.

The communities exist all throughout Southern California. So don't exhalt the boundary provisions, because they are anti-Democratic crap. They are meant to cage Democratic voters wherever possible. It's a gamble sure, but it's one weighted towards Republicans which is why they are  supporting the provision.

The accepted method for good districts is always communities of interest, rather than city boundaries per se', especailly in a place as dense and spread out as southern califonria.

What you like, and what you think is reform is a redrawing of districts by a non-partisan three judge panel. You don't mind saying that have their hand tied by the above provision. Or that there are only three and they are appointed, and they are no way representative of Californians. That's not reform, that's a redrawing of districts after the fact. They may look more reformy than the current districts, but they set a bad standard for the future.

Lastly, you mention individual voters above controlling the process. The problem here is that you're being an idealist, and they (the Republicans) are living in reality. California has 40 State Senators, 53 Congresspeople and 80 Representative Districts. The smallest district is not less that 400,000 persons. When they submit their plan they know how precincts vote for years, they know how many Democrats switch, and how likely they are to switch, how to make a district Democratic. They can make it very difficult for a district to act any way than with a party ID.

Oh and those maps, the judges don't draw them. They just choose which one they want. So you have a case where Republican partisans draw the map based precise data, and a judge who is not allowed to look at that data when they choose a map. That's your reform, more power to the operatives, less power and knowledge to the judges. That's the reform you're suggesting is technically sound.

I think we can all guess which party would be favored by old, white conservative Republican judges.

You're right about there being a million ways to play this.  And you're right about it being a crap-shoot to know which individual congressional members would be screwed.

But, like a craps game, it is stacked in favor of the Republicans.  The Compactness Criteria guarantee that no matter how you draw the actual districts, Democrats will be packed into heavily Democratic seats, leaving the Republicans to prey on the suburbs.