Tag Archives: gerrymandering

Whose Ox is That Being Gored??

Democrats and liberal pundits are all up in arms about proposals emerging in some states that would allocate the electoral vote by Congressional District. The reason they oppose such a measure is strictly partisan: given the current effects of gerrymandering (largely by Republicans at the state level), it would disadvantage Democrats. Why do I think that if Democrats had been doing the gerrymandering, the whole concept would be less offensive?

Let’s review the current situation and our options.

The Electoral College–whatever its original purposes or merits–is outmoded. It is certainly inconsistent with our current goal of “one person, one vote.” But eliminating it will require a constitutional amendment, and that would take years and be very difficult. Currently, most states award all of their electoral votes (a number equal to the number of Senators and Representatives from that state) to the candidate who wins a majority of the popular vote in that state–no matter how thin the victory.

In red Indiana, that means that voters who opted for Barack Obama in November might just as well have flushed those votes down the toilet. Ditto New York voters who preferred Mitt Romney.  Winner take all effectively erases the votes cast for the loser, even if that loss was by a mere fraction.

The Constitution permits each state to decide how its electoral votes will be allocated, and two states–Maine, and (I think) Nebraska–have long allocated them by congressional district, awarding the district vote to the winner of that district and giving the two additional votes to the candidate who wins statewide. Since congressional districts are supposed to be roughly equal in population, the result is an allocation that more closely approximates the breakdown of the vote statewide.

The kicker here, of course, is gerrymandering. Not surprisingly, the sudden interest in electoral fairness is being seen in states where the Republicans have been most successful in rigging the boundaries in their favor. But only the most naive among us would expect a different result if the situation were reversed; Democrats have been just as eager to draw squiggly lines that benefit them when they’ve had the power to do so.

If we really want a system in which everyone’s vote actually counts, a system that doesn’t give politicians of either party the opportunity to game the system, there is an easy fix: allocate the electoral vote to reflect the popular vote.

If candidate A gets 55% of the popular vote and candidate B gets 45%, allocate the electoral votes 55/45.

We talk a lot about the importance of voting, and each election we hear that “every vote counts.” That may be true of votes for local offices (unless gerrymandering has been at work at the local level), but with respect to our votes for President, it’s bull-hockey. Under our present system, red votes in blue states don’t count. Blue votes in red states don’t count.

If we really cared about electoral fairness, and not just about comparative advantage–not just about whose ox is gored–we’d allocate the electoral vote to represent the actual voice of the people.

Comments

It’s Us

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves…

Shakespeare penned those words; Nate Silver demonstrates their accuracy.

The increasing partisanship and polarization in Washington is making it more and more difficult to get anything meaningful done. The paralysis of government is real, and it is making all of us vulnerable–to economic recession, to climate change, to gun violence and all of the myriad challenges of contemporary social systems. Those in what Molly Ivins called the  “chattering classes,” the punditocracy, bewail this state of affairs, and insist that the American public not only deserves better but deeply disapproves of this ideological rigidity.

Nate Silver begs to differ.

in a recent post for the New York Times, Silver demonstrates that the gridlock in Washington mirrors our own polarization. As recently as 1992, there were 103 swing Congressional districts; this year, there were 35. At the same time, the number of “landslide” districts doubled, from 123 to 242. As a result, most members of Congress now come from “hyperpartisan” districts where they face no general election threat. Any re-election challenge will come in a primary; in other words, Democrats must protect their left flanks, Republicans their right. As Silver notes, House members have little incentive to move toward the middle. Compromise with the other party simply makes them vulnerable to a primary challenge.

I have written about the pernicious effect of “safe” districts before, but I have generally assumed them to be the product of redistricting–gerrymandering. But Silver says the effect persists even if we ignore redistricting. He underscores what Bill Bishop reported in The Big Sort: people are voting with their feet, moving to areas they find congenial. The result is that Democrats are crammed into urban areas, and Republicans populate more rural districts. The result of that is the dilution of Democratic votes: in this year’s election, Democrats won the national popular vote by one point–an 8 point shift in their favor from 2010. But they gained only 8 House seats out of 435.

The results of these population patterns disadvantages Democrats by making continued control of the House by Republicans likely (absent a “wave” election), but it holds an even more serious threat to Republicans. As Silver points out, although individual Republican House members have little incentive to compromise, there are risks to the party if they fail to do so. Individual House members come from districts that reward them for being intractable, but that intransigence and hyper-partisanship make it increasingly difficult for the GOP to win either the Senate or the White House.

It seems appropriate, given how dysfunctional our government has become, to devolve from Shakespeare to Laurel and Hardy:  this is certainly a fine kettle of fish we’ve gotten ourselves into!

Comments

Election Day

Today is election day in Indiana.

I know the system is close to broken. We’ve been subjected to negative ads because candidates believe–unfortunately, with much justification–that they cannot be elected unless they “define” their opponents. Districts have been gerrymandered. In Indiana, Republicans have worked to make it more difficult for people–especially poor people–to cast a vote. There are numerous flaws we can point to–or use as an excuse not to participate.

If we use those flaws as an excuse, however, we’re complicit. We’ll never fix what’s broken unless we participate in the political system, and the absolute minimum participation is through exercise of our franchise.

So VOTE.

Comments

Power to the People

Back in the wild and woolly Sixties, “Power to the People” was a slogan often shouted at sit-ins and the other disruptive gatherings that characterized those tumultuous times. We hear similar chants today from those attending “tea party” events.

Reporters covering the various factions of so-called tea partiers tell us that there really is no central issue motivating them; rather, these events are expressions of frustration and anger, fueled by feelings of powerlessness. A sour economy certainly doesn’t help.

It’s easy to dismiss Tea Party folks as fringe malcontents who are being given undue attention by the media; there were all of six hundred people in attendance at the recent national “convention” that received so much coverage. Certainly, it is not a coherent movement advocating any particular goal. But outright dismissal would be a mistake; while most Americans do not share the paranoia, racism and hostility to government that characterize Tea Party gatherings, huge numbers of Americans do share participants’ frustration and their belief that our governing institutions are not working.

Whatever one thinks of Evan Bayh and his motives for leaving the Senate, it is hard to argue with his accusation that extreme partisanship and the influence of moneyed special interests have crippled that institution. Game-playing has replaced policymaking, with the result that efforts to solve our most pressing problems—think healthcare, the environment, job creation—go nowhere. Time and time again, scoring political points or keeping the other party from doing so, trumps doing the people’s business. Time and time again, serving the vested interests trumps serving the people’s interests.

It isn’t only the U.S. Senate. The Indiana Legislature seems equally unwilling or unable to address the issues Hoosier voters really care about—improving education, creating jobs, reforming and streamlining our outmoded government and election systems.

What are Indiana lawmakers—of both parties, it should be noted—spending time on? Well, there’s always time to debate another anti-same-sex marriage amendment to the Indiana Constitution. Or to micro-manage local school board decisions about when school should start.

This year, lawmakers spent time on a bill prohibiting employers “from adopting or enforcing” rules against employees bringing guns to work. Perhaps you didn’t realize what a truly important problem that was—surely, every employee has the right to pack heat on his employer’s premises! The bill says employers have no right to prohibit workers from bringing weapons, so long as they are kept in a locked car, trunk, or glove compartment. Virtually every employer in the state is opposed to this bill, which has sailed through the House 76 to 21, and will easily pass the Senate.

I would suggest we return power to the people by voting these incumbents out of office, but unfortunately, voters no longer choose their representatives. Thanks to gerrymandering and the precision of modern computers, lawmakers today choose their voters.

It won’t surprise you to learn that the General Assembly hasn’t spent much time on proposals to eliminate gerrymandering, or to return power to the people.

Even When They’re Right on Principle…

As readers of this blog know, I’m a firm proponent of nonpartisan redistricting. Gerrymandering “games”–played by both parties–simply allow incumbents to choose their voters, rather than the other way around. So I have been inclined to be supportive of Todd Rokita’s traveling road show, even while somewhat suspicious of his motives. Rokita, after all, was the driving force behind the Voter ID law; a law that was a naked attempt to suppress the votes of elderly and minority voters who vote disproportionately Democratic.

My suspicions were apparently well-founded.