Review for Poli Sci 171

I. Politics of Diversity

January 18 – California’s Exceptionalism Examined

Why would people look at California?

California is unique – geography, population, political institutions, culture

Population – most diverse state

Political institutions – rarity: supermajority vote for budget, expansive set

of direct democracies, initiative process

Culture – Trendsetter of action (imitated in many states)

“California County Projections – 1997”’

January 23 - Immigration, Migration and California Politics

24 Million people, 12% of US population.

However, undercounted by 1-2%. Mainly minorities. Due to Census model.

Statistical sampling would be more accurate but unconstitutional

<garbled stuff>

Effects of California migration –

  1. accelerates age split between older whites and non-whites
  2. leading to majority non-white state
  3. creates wide income/class distribution w/ racial/ethnic overlay

January 25 –

4 ways immigration matters politically

  1. creates tension between US needs and US political capacity to deal w/ immigration
  2. Raises serious questions about notions of citizenship
  3. Contributes to political divisions along racial and ethnic lines
  4. contributes to changing demands placed upon the state

MacDonald and Cain – Rise in unemployment, concerns over jobs and wages, all came together by 1994 and immigration suddenly became an issue. Demographic, economic, and political realities led to 187 passing. Partisanship, education, and counties played a major role. Was 187 really nativist? Too many issues for CA voters. While racial nativism existed, not the only factor.

Citrin and Campbell – rising population of minorities. Hispanics at 32%. Asians at 13%. Issues of costs- cost/benefit ratio for immigration. Cultural assimilation. Political effects – issues are numbers vs. registration.

January 30 – obstacles to political mobilization

  1. demographic obstacles – age, SES, non-citizenship rates
  2. nationality differences – pan-ethnic doesn’t cut it
  3. women/men perception. Generational. Social mobility <clarify?>

February 1 – missing data

Racial and Ethnic Politics in CA –

Nakanishi – APAmericans and California Politics. Rising population. Group with many differences, not monolithic. More independent, less registered than other groups. Give lots of money. Attempts to create a bloc out of them. Potential as next American Jews swing vote group.

Chp 3 – rise of Asians in Monterey Park area. Had to work with Latinos as co-minorities to build power and win seats. However, fractured at state and national level (redistricting wise). Need to organize into one block to get effective voice and just Latino representation.

Brackman and Erie – Latinos and Asians in LA politics. Politics dominated by Jewish/African-American alliance. However, rise in Latinos and Asians challenge that. Bradley was coalition but coalition falling apart between blacks and Jews. Hispanics moving into black control. Asians still side group, mainly money. Woo was trounced because could not get Jewish and African-Americans to turn out. Possible divisions between blacks and Asians (in light of riots). However, Jews and Asians may be getting closer.