Vote on my Vote

I'm facing a dilemma. If I were the dramatic type, I might even call it a moral crisis. But not being the dramatic type, I've decided to write a blog post about it and ask for comments.

Here's the issue:
I have a ballot. It's an absentee ballot. I got it in the mail. There are ten pages and I have completed them all. From the federal level all the way down to the city, I filled-in the requisite number of broken arrows such that my infinitesimally marginal voice will be projected as loud as it can be projected. I have researched those judges looking to represent my municipal district despite an absolute dearth of relevant googleable information. I have dug deep into the comment sections of San Francisco's alternative weeklies and unearthed dirt on local school board candidates. I have figured out what an Assessor-Recorder does. But one vote remains.

Well, technically two. California state propositions 20 and 27 are opposing measures on the same issue. The issue is redistricting. The text of Prop 20 reads as follows:

Removes elected representatives from process of establishing congressional districts and transfers that authority to recently-authorized 14-member redistricting commission comprised of Democrats, Republicans, and representatives of neither party.

Prop 27 reads (allow me to paraphrase): makes Prop 20 go away, no tag-backs.

If both props carry a majority (I wouldn't put it past the California electorate), the one with the most votes wins.

As far as my principles go, I'd really prefer to vote for 20 and against 27 (that is, for the redistricting commission). As far as I can tell, gerrymandering doesn't serve any social function other than to keep incumbents in power. Also, its a fantastically effective tool to disenfranchise any residentially-concentrated minority community (see: the Spanish-speaking half of the state). Allowing a commission (selected to fit the above mentioned criteria by three state auditors, a Democrat, a Republican, and an independent, all three of whom have already been selected, also randomly) to redraw congressional districts is obviously less democratic in a direct sense, but strikes me as a little more fair and a little more legitimate.

So why do I hesitate? This is what I wrote to my mom about the same issue late last night:

But, on the other hand, why should a consistently Democratic state be diced up by a panel divided equally along partisan lines? And do we really want to take redistricting power away from our elected representatives, however noble we happen to think the idea is, when OUR elected representatives are predominantly Democratic? Do we want to be unilaterally principled when our votes are competing with (gasp!) TEXANS?!? Have you ever seen a map of Texas, district-by-district? Most people don't know this: it's a pixel portrait of Tom Delay's face.

A number of people in the pro-27 camp make the argument that while reforming the redistricting process is a worthy goal, it really ought to be done on a federal level. Otherwise, all those states most open to transparency and electoral reform (can I fairly assume these to be disproportionately blue?) will vote themselves into an electoral disadvantage against those that hold out against reform.

But can we ever really expect a law so hostile to incumbency to pass through Congress?

So what do you guys think? Imagine you're from California and then imagine that your vote makes the slightest difference. Do you vote on your principles or your partisan pragmatism?