> Would the situation be better if CA voters could elect another party to run the state than the one that's been in power for the last 30 years?
In the past 30 years, California has had a Republican governor for a majority of the time (16 years); at least one Republican statewide constitutional officer excluding the Governor (or Lt. Governor, but they've never had that office in the period in question) for 20 years (California, unlike the federal government, has a divided rather than unitary executive), a Republican Assembly majority for two years, and Republican strength in at least one house of the legislature sufficient to stop a budget from being passed without their consent for 24 years, and enough strength in at least one house of the legislature to block any bill that increased any tax for 27 years.
To the extent that California has a "political monopoly", its only been for the last couple years, not the last 30.
In the past 30 years, California has had a Republican governor for a majority of the time (16 years); at least one Republican statewide constitutional officer excluding the Governor (or Lt. Governor, but they've never had that office in the period in question) for 20 years (California, unlike the federal government, has a divided rather than unitary executive), a Republican Assembly majority for two years, and Republican strength in at least one house of the legislature sufficient to stop a budget from being passed without their consent for 24 years, and enough strength in at least one house of the legislature to block any bill that increased any tax for 27 years.
To the extent that California has a "political monopoly", its only been for the last couple years, not the last 30.