No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, his integrity.
James Madison
These wise words from the "Father of the Constitution" go out the window when it comes to redistricting for legislative seats. Instead, the politicians themselves draw the boundaries for their districts. This practice multiplies the advantages of incumbency, ensures that left and right wing extremists enjoy a heavy electoral advantage over moderates and consequently contributes to partisan gridlock and voter apathy. Several solutions have been proposed to deal with this problem in a fair and nonpartisan way, but I feel the best is one that takes self-interest out of the equation altogether. I'll come back to this later.
The Constitution requires a national census every ten years. When the results are published state legislatures set about the business of redrawing district boundaries. Since representation in the House of Representatives is determined by population, a state may have to add or subtract congressional districts. They are also required to make their districts, be they state senate or assembly or U. S. congressional districts, as equal as possible in population.
In practice, the majority party wants to make sure it stays in the majority. And each legislator wants to make sure he or she gets re-elected. This is very easy to do nowadays, using voter registration data and the number crunching power of modern computers. Highly Republican areas are combined together into districts to create safe Republican seats and highly Democratic areas are combined to create safe Democratic seats. In a state, to keep the "out" party out, it is given fewer seats but with even larger majorities. The map is "gerrymandered" to do this, often creating districts of bizarrely elongated shapes to get enough similar partisans into the same district so as to set up an easy win. The political geographers are very good at their work. In my state, Democratic-dominated California, there are 80 assembly, 40 senate and 53 congressional districts. Of these 173 districts only 4 have changed parties in the three elections since the 2000 census. In Texas, Republicans gained a majority in the legislature in 2002 and to solidify their power, took the unusual step of redistricting in mid-decade. Based on the new map, they immediately won six new congressional seats in 2004.
This is great for incumbents, as it is intended to be. With most districts made up of 60 to 65% of their own party members, politicians can be assured that unless they do something really stupid they're in for life. It's nice for them not to have to be accountable. The minority party often doesn't bother to field a serious candidate, or in quite a few districts, any candidate at all. Why bother when the deck is so heavily stacked against you that the outcome is a foregone conclusion? More and more people see the system for the sham it is. They grow cynical or do not vote. In California the percentage of "decline to state" registrants has doubled between 1990 and 2006 to 18.6%.
The other negative effect of the system is to send more extreme partisans to state capitals and Washington, D.C. With only the voters of one side represented in a district the candidates who win in primaries (the only elections that truly matter in such districts) are increasingly the more extreme ideologues of left and right. These are people who refuse to make the kinds of moderate compromises necessary to bridge the gap and find the common ground between the two parties. Our politics have become dominated by all-or-nothing, ultimatim-based, invective-laced hysteria. Meanwhile important but controversial issues like immigration, health care, social security, global warming, energy self-sufficiency and the national debt fester, worsen and go unsolved.
Madison's quote at the beginning of this piece illustrates the Founders' insight into human nature, that when unrestrained power can be used for selfish purposes it will be. That's why they built so many checks and balances into the Constitution. Unfortunately, they did not anticipate the development of political parties and computers. So what can be done? Solutions to the problem have generally focused on trying to find respected and nonpartisan arbitrators to make the decision. California's popular Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger recently sponsored a ballot measure to turn redistricting over to a panel of three retired judges. The voters defeated it, no doubt suspecting that the judges could turn out to be as partisan as the politicians themselves, or at least as partisan as people in general. The human factor is always the problem. So why not eliminate it? There is a way.
The solution is elegantly simple. It is possible to write a computer program to divide a state into districts based on two criteria: first, equal population, and second, that the total length of the boundary lines separating the districts is as short as possible. This will yield one solution. There will still be some predominantly Republican and some predominantly Democratic districts, but there will be a great many more evenly matched districts than there are now. These districts will be competitve at election time, giving voters a real opportunity to change parties or rid themselves of an incumbent who fails to please them. There will be more moderates and fewer of the partisan ideologues who keep politics divided and cannot make the compromises necessary with the other side to get problems solved. Elected officials will have to keep the views and interests of both sides in mind rather than just one. To stay in office they will need to do a better job of serving all their constituents. In short, there will be democracy.
4 comments:
You've hit on perhaps the single key problem with the US political system here. Single member voting districts, where the majority takes all. It is probably too radical a solution to switch to proportional representation, which has other drawbacks and would be impossible to accomplish.
I am intrigued by the computer program approach you mention. What kind of districts would result?
I am leery of a purely technological fix. I have seen too many federal programs based on "logical, impartial" criteria (e.g. using Census tracts as boundaries) that end up creating irrational borders. I think a critical starting point for districts should be established political boundaries, like city and county lines, which are accepted demarcation lines that everyone understands and create a practical basis for shared interest among citizens.
I remember the recent California ballot measure (2004?), which was supported by Schwarzenegger and ex-LA Mayor Riordan along with a blue ribbon nonpartisan panel. I thought at the time, and still think, it was the most important reform needed in our political system. Democrats, to my chagrin and their discredit, fought hard against it since they stood to lose control of the redistricting system. As you say, the party in control cannot be impartial.
I thought at the time, and still think, the time is ripe for a new Progressive movement -- citizens who rise up and organize a fair play in government movement. We're roughly at the centennial mark of the Progressives. Time for our 100 year tune-up.
But how to mobilize the people in an era of personality politics, when political systems analysis is too time-consuming for the average citizen?
jeff
Good, thoughtful comment, Jeff. Thanks for identifying this a perhaps the single key problem with the system. That's why I put it first.
You ask what kind of districts would be produced. The principal characteristic is that they would be as geographically compact as possible. You bring up the consideration of trying to retain what are known as communities of interest. Trying to follow the boundaries of such things as incorporated areas in order to keep the residents of one town in the same district could be accommodated in the program, and I have no objection to that. Under the present system that is done sometimes and ignored other times. The 15th Texas Congressional, for instance, begins in the suburbs of Austin and runs over 200 miles south to the Rio Grande. California's 25th Congressional begins in the northern suburbs of Los Angeles, crosses the Tehachapi Mts.,then goes 200 miles through the Mohave Desert before running north for 300 miles along the Nevada border. These are certainly egregious examples of the irrational borders you refer to, and represent the type of political gamesmanship that wouldn't happen under my proposal or my proposal as modified by trying not to split cities, as your amendment suggests. County lines might be quite a bit harder to follow.
As for your idea for a new progressive movement, yes, I definitely feel the time is ripe to clean out the rot. There are many parallels between now and the last decade of the nineteenth century and first decade of the twentieth. People are tired of many aspects of things as they stand. We remember that 15 years ago the quirky Ross Perot won 19% of the national vote on a housecleaning platform. There was talk of a third party Bloomberg-Harkin challenge ticket this year. I feel it could come in one of two ways: a state could successfully adopt reforms which would then spread, and/or galvanizing leadership could emerge. Several states are instituting some interesting reforms right now or taking on national issues within their own borders. These are the kinds of things that can provide fodder for future posts.
The idea of using computers to solve this problem is intriguing (can't imagine why, since I teach computers to middle school kids). ;-)
In California, obviously, districts in the south and along the coast would be small, while districts to the north and east would be larger, reflecting where the people are. Most districts would end up circular, or near circular, as that would leave the smalled boundaries between districts. Elegant, yet a simple solution to the problem. Now, do the legislatures have the cajones to do the right thing? The cynic, says no. The optimist says....maybe. That's how far our systems has gone out of whack, imo.
It's interesting that in George Washington's farewell address, he warned against three things - political parties, public debt and dependence upon foreign alliances, all of which our country has drifted to over time.
Of the three, the political parties have created the most problems, since most politicians tend to think what's in the best interests of "Me, then Party, then my constituents." One would think, that in theory, the party should be last.
Good comments, Webfoot. Since the politicians might never muster the huevos to overcome their self interest and do the right thing it might take an initiative to get it done. After the governor vetoed it and then a second attempt died in committee, Oregon's voters took the matter into their own hands in a remarakable campaign that featured no paid signature gatherers and added presidential elections to their vote by mail plan with 70% of the vote.
As for Washington's advice I agree his warnings about "the spirit of faction" and debt were right on the mark. I believe alliances, however, are good things for us to belong to in these times.
Post a Comment