Apportion the blame

Re “Check back in 2011,” Opinion, Sept. 30

Tony Quinn accurately analyzes and predicts what could occur after the 2010 U.S. Census and a 2011 California legislative reapportionment. However, he and The Times continue to assume that the use of the word “reform” somehow means reform.

Quinn’s only specific definition of “reapportionment reform” is his reference to a “nonpartisan entity” that would assume the reapportionment role. Is there such a nonpartisan entity?

If Quinn has specific ideas about what reform would be, they are not discussed.

The deeper problem is The Times itself. For decades, the state’s leading newspaper has been remiss in its reapportionment coverage, never exploring what real reapportionment reforms might be. It covers reapportionment solely as a once-a-decade battle between partisan adversaries.

To my knowledge, it has yet to thoroughly explore the how and why of reapportionment and the difficulties and the potential unintended consequences inherent in any reforms.

Alan Rosin

Camarillo

It’s funny, when Republicans held the presidency and the House and Senate we heard constantly about the perils of one-party rule and the dangers of the powerlessness of national Democrats. But somehow the idea of two-party government in California becoming history appears natural, inevitable and even desirous, holding no risks.

Also, our nominally Republican governor asserts he is in the euphoric state of post-partisanship and urges us conservative Republicans to relinquish basic principles, join him or face oblivion. To paraphrase a famous revolutionary, “Give my party principles or give it death.”

Ken Artingstall

Glendale