Death of Gerrymandering
Watching California try to draw more simple, less Gerymandered Districts has been painful in the last few years. I always though the problem was near intractable. Then on our Participative Democracy thread, Alex Bowles introduces us to a computer algorithm.
Gerrymandering is the 800 pound gorilla, the elephant in the living room, and cancer of representative democracy, all rolled into one.
It is why the vast majority of Congressional seats remain ’safe’ in the face of approval ratings that can’t crack 20%, and disapproval ratings that are tracking steadily around 70%.
Here’s a link describing the shortest split-line algorithm method for establishing districts in a truly unbiased fashion. It’s Occam’s Razor applied to Congress (and yes, there will be blood). http://www.rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html
At the top you can see the results for Alabama today (on the left), which keeps black voters separated from white voters in incredibly elaborate districts and how the computer would draw the districts (on the right). I think this is profound. If 80% of the voters think we are “on the wrong track”, why would Washington Insiders predict that 70% of the incumbents will be returned to office? Because they created one party districts. Then all they had to do was control the party machine and the money to stay in office.
How do we advance this idea of a computer redrawing the election district maps for the whole country? Talk about shaking things up in Washington.
Here’s a cynical devil’s advocate in reply:
Both parties would take any computer algorithm offered forth and do a simulation. Next, they’d call up their respective pollsters and determine exactly how favorable or unfavorable the redrawing would be for their party.
The side with more to lose will begin the drumbeat of false logic to state why redrawing shouldn’t occur, the legislature will reach deadlock and the issue will fade into the background for another x years.
Here’s a cynical devil’s advocate in reply:
Both parties would take any computer algorithm offered forth and do a simulation. Next, they’d call up their respective pollsters and determine exactly how favorable or unfavorable the redrawing would be for their party.
The side with more to lose will begin the drumbeat of false logic to state why redrawing shouldn’t occur, the legislature will reach deadlock and the issue will fade into the background for another x years.
That doesn’t sound like a devil’s advocate Tim, but a likely outcome!
That doesn’t sound like a devil’s advocate Tim, but a likely outcome!
But what a marvelous addition to the list of things that could make politicians more credible. I know that flies in the face of my own urging that we only consider “viable” ideas, and yes Tim, that is exactly what would happen, but wouldn’t it solve one of the most exasperation wastes of state legislator’s time?
Think how long the Texas government was tied up with partisan redistricting battles, complete with the Dems fleeing the state in an attempt to block it. If it wasn’t so damn obscure, so that only professional pols and a few political wonks know about it, I would bet the public would go for an non biased, (now don’t bother us with that again) approach.
But what a marvelous addition to the list of things that could make politicians more credible. I know that flies in the face of my own urging that we only consider “viable” ideas, and yes Tim, that is exactly what would happen, but wouldn’t it solve one of the most exasperation wastes of state legislator’s time?
Think how long the Texas government was tied up with partisan redistricting battles, complete with the Dems fleeing the state in an attempt to block it. If it wasn’t so damn obscure, so that only professional pols and a few political wonks know about it, I would bet the public would go for an non biased, (now don’t bother us with that again) approach.
Ken – this is a case where obscurity and obscenity go hand in hand. Here’s how it works, according to the good folks at RangeVoting.org:
“Suppose a state gets gerrymandered by the dominant party. Then that party can (if the gerrymandering is optimal – and with computers optimality is getting more and more approachable) stay in majority control permanently even with only 26% support. (It simply creates exactly two kinds of districts: those consisting 100% opposition party supporters, and those containing 51% their supporters.)
Now suppose you are a voter in one of those 100% opposition districts. Year after year, you elect an opposition party candidate. That fellow always is shouted down and loses in whatever he tries to do in the state house. Every time there is money to be distributed to districts, your district does not get it. This goes on year after year after year.
So along comes a candidate from the dominant party. He says to you: “I know you are opposed to what I stand for. But that does not matter because my party is dominant and always going to win statewide anyhow. What matters is, if you elect me, then your district will finally get some state money and your representative will finally be able to accomplish something to help your district.”
That is a strong argument, isn’t it? Kind of a “brute power counts, principles do not” argument. Trouble is, there is a lot of truth to it. And so, after year after decade of this happening, the dominant party solidifies more and more control over the state. The result is permanent one-party “machine” domination of that state. These machines can grow extremely corrupt, and they can be nearly impossible to remove.”
It’s rough stuff.
Ken – this is a case where obscurity and obscenity go hand in hand. Here’s how it works, according to the good folks at RangeVoting.org:
“Suppose a state gets gerrymandered by the dominant party. Then that party can (if the gerrymandering is optimal – and with computers optimality is getting more and more approachable) stay in majority control permanently even with only 26% support. (It simply creates exactly two kinds of districts: those consisting 100% opposition party supporters, and those containing 51% their supporters.)
Now suppose you are a voter in one of those 100% opposition districts. Year after year, you elect an opposition party candidate. That fellow always is shouted down and loses in whatever he tries to do in the state house. Every time there is money to be distributed to districts, your district does not get it. This goes on year after year after year.
So along comes a candidate from the dominant party. He says to you: “I know you are opposed to what I stand for. But that does not matter because my party is dominant and always going to win statewide anyhow. What matters is, if you elect me, then your district will finally get some state money and your representative will finally be able to accomplish something to help your district.”
That is a strong argument, isn’t it? Kind of a “brute power counts, principles do not” argument. Trouble is, there is a lot of truth to it. And so, after year after decade of this happening, the dominant party solidifies more and more control over the state. The result is permanent one-party “machine” domination of that state. These machines can grow extremely corrupt, and they can be nearly impossible to remove.”
It’s rough stuff.
Totally agree Alex that finding a system that doesn’t give the party in control control of redistricting is one of the keys to putting the public back into politics. One could argue that it shows how misguided people were when they threw so much energy into terms limits, compared to what this would have accomplished. (Though I suspect major lobby groups may have been behind term limits; they certainly came out the winners.)
As usual, the trick isn’t just to figure out what would bring substantial reforms, but who to “sell” them to to get some hope of them being implemented.
Totally agree Alex that finding a system that doesn’t give the party in control control of redistricting is one of the keys to putting the public back into politics. One could argue that it shows how misguided people were when they threw so much energy into terms limits, compared to what this would have accomplished. (Though I suspect major lobby groups may have been behind term limits; they certainly came out the winners.)
As usual, the trick isn’t just to figure out what would bring substantial reforms, but who to “sell” them to to get some hope of them being implemented.
Excellent Alex!
This sounds like a brilliant idea to me. This computerized re-drawing of state congressional districts, along with a National Popular Vote Bill would put every single vote in play. It would change how issues are discussed and presented to the electorate by the pols. This is at the very heart of what we have been talking about for months…a systematic dumbing down of the issues involved.
A two-pronged attack at the state and national level, that changes the way individuals are placed into positions of power, is the absolute first step in changing the way people (the electorate) participate in their democracy. It seems to me to be the essential point of introducing the idea of “participative democracy”. As soon as the process of representation is changed to reflect the issues people are really interested in and affected by, then the method of resolving these issues can be discussed in a much more forthright manner. Until then, we are stuck with the pandering, hemming and hawing, and lip-service to specific constituencies during election time.
The point is to make the individual vote matter again and I cannot imagine a New Federalist government where this is not the first step in re-organization.
Excellent Alex!
This sounds like a brilliant idea to me. This computerized re-drawing of state congressional districts, along with a National Popular Vote Bill would put every single vote in play. It would change how issues are discussed and presented to the electorate by the pols. This is at the very heart of what we have been talking about for months…a systematic dumbing down of the issues involved.
A two-pronged attack at the state and national level, that changes the way individuals are placed into positions of power, is the absolute first step in changing the way people (the electorate) participate in their democracy. It seems to me to be the essential point of introducing the idea of “participative democracy”. As soon as the process of representation is changed to reflect the issues people are really interested in and affected by, then the method of resolving these issues can be discussed in a much more forthright manner. Until then, we are stuck with the pandering, hemming and hawing, and lip-service to specific constituencies during election time.
The point is to make the individual vote matter again and I cannot imagine a New Federalist government where this is not the first step in re-organization.
I know that those lines on the right look nice and neat, but do they take geographical features into account? Mountains/rough terrain, rivers and other water occasionally form “natural gerrymandering.”
I think redistricting is necessary, but partisan politics and CYA are giant roadblocks on the way to reform. I’m afraid we’ll sooner see the end of the Electoral College.
I know that those lines on the right look nice and neat, but do they take geographical features into account? Mountains/rough terrain, rivers and other water occasionally form “natural gerrymandering.”
I think redistricting is necessary, but partisan politics and CYA are giant roadblocks on the way to reform. I’m afraid we’ll sooner see the end of the Electoral College.
Another Jon -
I think you’ve really hit on the right starting point when you say we need to “make the individual vote matter again and I cannot imagine a New Federalist government where this is not the first step in re-organization.”
My feeling is that until this happens, every other standard-issue ‘reform’ (term limits, public election finance, disclosure rules, etc.) is basically a waste of breath. After all, you can have limited terms, completely public finance for candidates, and total disclosure for every dollar a political party or PAC receives or spends, and still be completely disenfranchised if your district has been gerrymandered into irrelevance.
What I like about your idea, A. Jon, is its radical simplicity. You don’t bother with grand visions for new societies, unprecedented constitutional conventions, debatable forms of reform, or increasingly unwieldy rules to govern money, speech, accounting and disclosures. These things are hard enough to understand, let alone sell. And not one of them prevents the underlying system from being gamed to the point where any ‘progress’ is swiftly and quietly neutralized.
To trigger real reform, insist on one thing, and one thing only: the unbiased integrity of the vote. Do this knowing full well that the changes needed to make it really happen will have a tsunami-like effect on the political establishment.
The pitch, which can be made to Americans of every stripe, is based in the shock and revulsion we feel when we contemplate the idea that, at one time, certain Americans were only worth 3/5th of their humanity. Yes, we made some progress when this abomination was abolished, but we’ve regressed since then. And this time, we don’t even know it, let alone by how much.
The real irony is that many blacks living under the 3/5th rule were probably more enfranchised than most blacks living today – the majority of whom, I’m sure, are now worth far less than that. And it’s not just former slaves who have to fight for a fair shake. We all do now – some more, some less. The question is how much? The answer is ‘it depends’.
One guy who would know is Tom DeLay – the undisputed master of adjusting each voter’s value, district by district, state by state; letting it increase or decrease as required by the constant shifts in local demographics; handling citizens like commodities on the futures market, bought and sold with earmarks on someone else’s labor, and fought for in the Supreme Court if the opposition tried blocking the deal.
Whatever else happened, he wasn’t about to loose any of ‘his’ voters, or get saddled with voters he’d rather not have in his district. And make no mistake, it was HIS district. After all, he was the guy who designed it. And you can be sure he maximized the value of that base in bullying others into accepting his dominion. It was the rule of man, and yes, it was profoundly corrupt.
If what you’re trying to do is reassert the rule of law, then this is the effect you need to counter. I can imagine starting with a website where you enter your address, and find out exactly how much your vote is currently worth. Are you a 0.0496 man? A 0.378 woman? A well-endowed 1.239 Republican? A super powerful 3.461 Democrat? Or maybe you’re just a total zero.
The important thing is the demonstration that NOT ever vote counts, that the votes that do count DON’T count equally, and that if elected officials decide that your vote counts for too much, they can respond by simply diluting your power to a level they’re comfortable with, or eliminating it altogether if that’s more expedient.
It’s time for a new New Deal.
And before this conversation goes much further, credit must be given where credit is due; the shortest split line algorithm is the creation of Dr. Warren D. Smith, a Princeton and MIT trained mathematician now working at Temple University in Philadelphia. More on Dr. Smith here: http://www.math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/myresume.html
Another Jon -
I think you’ve really hit on the right starting point when you say we need to “make the individual vote matter again and I cannot imagine a New Federalist government where this is not the first step in re-organization.”
My feeling is that until this happens, every other standard-issue ‘reform’ (term limits, public election finance, disclosure rules, etc.) is basically a waste of breath. After all, you can have limited terms, completely public finance for candidates, and total disclosure for every dollar a political party or PAC receives or spends, and still be completely disenfranchised if your district has been gerrymandered into irrelevance.
What I like about your idea, A. Jon, is its radical simplicity. You don’t bother with grand visions for new societies, unprecedented constitutional conventions, debatable forms of reform, or increasingly unwieldy rules to govern money, speech, accounting and disclosures. These things are hard enough to understand, let alone sell. And not one of them prevents the underlying system from being gamed to the point where any ‘progress’ is swiftly and quietly neutralized.
To trigger real reform, insist on one thing, and one thing only: the unbiased integrity of the vote. Do this knowing full well that the changes needed to make it really happen will have a tsunami-like effect on the political establishment.
The pitch, which can be made to Americans of every stripe, is based in the shock and revulsion we feel when we contemplate the idea that, at one time, certain Americans were only worth 3/5th of their humanity. Yes, we made some progress when this abomination was abolished, but we’ve regressed since then. And this time, we don’t even know it, let alone by how much.
The real irony is that many blacks living under the 3/5th rule were probably more enfranchised than most blacks living today – the majority of whom, I’m sure, are now worth far less than that. And it’s not just former slaves who have to fight for a fair shake. We all do now – some more, some less. The question is how much? The answer is ‘it depends’.
One guy who would know is Tom DeLay – the undisputed master of adjusting each voter’s value, district by district, state by state; letting it increase or decrease as required by the constant shifts in local demographics; handling citizens like commodities on the futures market, bought and sold with earmarks on someone else’s labor, and fought for in the Supreme Court if the opposition tried blocking the deal.
Whatever else happened, he wasn’t about to loose any of ‘his’ voters, or get saddled with voters he’d rather not have in his district. And make no mistake, it was HIS district. After all, he was the guy who designed it. And you can be sure he maximized the value of that base in bullying others into accepting his dominion. It was the rule of man, and yes, it was profoundly corrupt.
If what you’re trying to do is reassert the rule of law, then this is the effect you need to counter. I can imagine starting with a website where you enter your address, and find out exactly how much your vote is currently worth. Are you a 0.0496 man? A 0.378 woman? A well-endowed 1.239 Republican? A super powerful 3.461 Democrat? Or maybe you’re just a total zero.
The important thing is the demonstration that NOT ever vote counts, that the votes that do count DON’T count equally, and that if elected officials decide that your vote counts for too much, they can respond by simply diluting your power to a level they’re comfortable with, or eliminating it altogether if that’s more expedient.
It’s time for a new New Deal.
And before this conversation goes much further, credit must be given where credit is due; the shortest split line algorithm is the creation of Dr. Warren D. Smith, a Princeton and MIT trained mathematician now working at Temple University in Philadelphia. More on Dr. Smith here: http://www.math.temple.edu/~wds/homepage/myresume.html
Alex and AJ- So how do we do this? Is the idea introduced at individual state levels or do we try to publicize it at a national level? I’m serious that in states that have a vibrant initiative and referendum system like California the idea could get traction because it’s so damn sensible and simple to explain.
Alex and AJ- So how do we do this? Is the idea introduced at individual state levels or do we try to publicize it at a national level? I’m serious that in states that have a vibrant initiative and referendum system like California the idea could get traction because it’s so damn sensible and simple to explain.
Jon T.: A California initiative might be a good place to start. See Prop. 215, the medical marijuana initiative: That eminently sensible, yet controversial, idea cleared a significant political hurdle and gained traction in a number of other states.
Create the right branding/marketing “hook” for a computer-aided, “non-partisan gerrymandering” initiative, get the grassroots and a significant fundraising group behind it, and push, push, push.
Jon T.: A California initiative might be a good place to start. See Prop. 215, the medical marijuana initiative: That eminently sensible, yet controversial, idea cleared a significant political hurdle and gained traction in a number of other states.
Create the right branding/marketing “hook” for a computer-aided, “non-partisan gerrymandering” initiative, get the grassroots and a significant fundraising group behind it, and push, push, push.
Alex Bowles has it just right: “To trigger reform, insist on one thing, and one thing only: the unbiased integrity of the vote.”
Gerrymandering rigs our political system beyond all belief. Reducing or eliminating gerrymandering could be the single most important political reform.
John cuts to the chase: “So how do we do this?” In my opinion it can’t be done at the state level. The small cadre of party activists who control such things are committed to protecting party control. At least that’s been my experience in Democratic Maryland, and I am a Democrat. (If you want to see amazing gerrymandering, go to the Md Dept of Planning map page http://www.mdp.state.md.us/redistrict/related_links.htm
and click on either congressional districts or legislative districts. The congressional districts in the Baltimore-D.C. region are a work of art.
This could be the rare case where a U.S. constitutional amendment might have a chance of quick ratification. (No, I must be delusional.)
I don’t trust the computer algorithm approach. Difficult as it is to achieve, I would try to create a human process insulated from politics. Suggestion: A five-member redistricting panel consisting of a retired state judge, a retired rabbi, a retired bishop, a retired mathematics professor and a retired mechanical engineer. Nothing is incorruptible, but that would be close. — Bernie
Alex Bowles has it just right: “To trigger reform, insist on one thing, and one thing only: the unbiased integrity of the vote.”
Gerrymandering rigs our political system beyond all belief. Reducing or eliminating gerrymandering could be the single most important political reform.
John cuts to the chase: “So how do we do this?” In my opinion it can’t be done at the state level. The small cadre of party activists who control such things are committed to protecting party control. At least that’s been my experience in Democratic Maryland, and I am a Democrat. (If you want to see amazing gerrymandering, go to the Md Dept of Planning map page http://www.mdp.state.md.us/redistrict/related_links.htm
and click on either congressional districts or legislative districts. The congressional districts in the Baltimore-D.C. region are a work of art.
This could be the rare case where a U.S. constitutional amendment might have a chance of quick ratification. (No, I must be delusional.)
I don’t trust the computer algorithm approach. Difficult as it is to achieve, I would try to create a human process insulated from politics. Suggestion: A five-member redistricting panel consisting of a retired state judge, a retired rabbi, a retired bishop, a retired mathematics professor and a retired mechanical engineer. Nothing is incorruptible, but that would be close. — Bernie
My memory of reading Mark Monmonier’s “Bushmanders and Bullwinkles” is that there are some sticky issues in the (dis)enfranchisement of minorities. Drawing a contorted district to gather minorities together can serve to actually give them a voice by ensuring at least one district sending a representative from that demographic.
In my mind, the problem actually lies with the winner-takes-all approach; it seems to cause distortions in several ways: motivation for gerrymandering; motivation to bring home pork; the stranglehold of the 2-party system.
There are some emphatic statements in this thread about the value of every vote, but if there is no candidate who represents your interests, and the winner-takes-all system inherently inhibits establishment of new parties, does it help that your vote counts?
Monmonier discusses an interesting approach: multi-seat districts which elect several candidates at once. It sounds appealing to me.
My memory of reading Mark Monmonier’s “Bushmanders and Bullwinkles” is that there are some sticky issues in the (dis)enfranchisement of minorities. Drawing a contorted district to gather minorities together can serve to actually give them a voice by ensuring at least one district sending a representative from that demographic.
In my mind, the problem actually lies with the winner-takes-all approach; it seems to cause distortions in several ways: motivation for gerrymandering; motivation to bring home pork; the stranglehold of the 2-party system.
There are some emphatic statements in this thread about the value of every vote, but if there is no candidate who represents your interests, and the winner-takes-all system inherently inhibits establishment of new parties, does it help that your vote counts?
Monmonier discusses an interesting approach: multi-seat districts which elect several candidates at once. It sounds appealing to me.
Maarten brings up two interesting points.
In some places, gerrymandering is virtually mandated by court decisions requiring minority representation. In Maryland, two of our eight congressional districts are drawn to be majority African-American, giving black people representation approaching their proportion of the state’s population.
Therefore, districts should meet three criteria: a) compactness,
b) Natural boundaries, and c) Avoid dividing communities, especially minority communities.
Multi-seat districts, if they are gerrymandered, result in election of very few candidates from the minority party. Most of Maryland’s state legislative districts elect three members to the House of Delegates, and most of the districts favor one party or the other.
Politicians have perfected the art of forming slates and running as slates. With few exceptions, all three candidates on the majority party slate win in a gerrymandered district. — Bernie
Maarten brings up two interesting points.
In some places, gerrymandering is virtually mandated by court decisions requiring minority representation. In Maryland, two of our eight congressional districts are drawn to be majority African-American, giving black people representation approaching their proportion of the state’s population.
Therefore, districts should meet three criteria: a) compactness,
b) Natural boundaries, and c) Avoid dividing communities, especially minority communities.
Multi-seat districts, if they are gerrymandered, result in election of very few candidates from the minority party. Most of Maryland’s state legislative districts elect three members to the House of Delegates, and most of the districts favor one party or the other.
Politicians have perfected the art of forming slates and running as slates. With few exceptions, all three candidates on the majority party slate win in a gerrymandered district. — Bernie
Slight footnote. I grew up in Elbridge Gerry’s town, Marblehead, Massachusetts, and though Gerrymandering is usually pronounced with a soft “G”…like a “J”…in fact the name is pronounced with a hard “G”. It’s a portmanteau word made up of Gerry and part of salamander. When Gerry came up with the plan, one of the districts looked like nothing more than a salamander, and the papers bestowed the new name upon the practice of mapping districts this way.
He had a pretty fascinating career:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_Gerry
Slight footnote. I grew up in Elbridge Gerry’s town, Marblehead, Massachusetts, and though Gerrymandering is usually pronounced with a soft “G”…like a “J”…in fact the name is pronounced with a hard “G”. It’s a portmanteau word made up of Gerry and part of salamander. When Gerry came up with the plan, one of the districts looked like nothing more than a salamander, and the papers bestowed the new name upon the practice of mapping districts this way.
He had a pretty fascinating career:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbridge_Gerry
@Bernie– I’m not familiar with the way current multi-seat distrcts work. IIRC, Monmonier proposes a system in which each voter gets as many votes as there are seats, and can apportion them among candidates as they like, including putting all their votes with one candidate. Minority candidates would be more likely to do this, allegedly giving a higher chance that a minority candidate would be elected without having to gerrymander districts (much).
@Bernie– I’m not familiar with the way current multi-seat distrcts work. IIRC, Monmonier proposes a system in which each voter gets as many votes as there are seats, and can apportion them among candidates as they like, including putting all their votes with one candidate. Minority candidates would be more likely to do this, allegedly giving a higher chance that a minority candidate would be elected without having to gerrymander districts (much).
The defeat of Prop. 77 in California (2005) illuminates the issue to a degree.
1. It was presented as ‘redistricting reform’, which is an awfully general goal, as opposed to a more specific ban on gerrymandering.
2. General ends were combined with a very specific approach (the creation of a 3 member panel of retired judges).
3. The net result was the defenders of the status quo could avoid discussion of the real issue by playing up potential issues with the three retired, probably white, probably male, probably conservative, and definitely upper middle class judges that would hold sway over a very diverse population.
4. Governor Schwarzenegger, who was in a position to educate the voters on what was really at stake, overplayed his hand by making Prop. 77 one of four pillars in a reform agenda. Elsewhere, the same agenda took on the ability of unions to use dues for political lobbying while pushing for educational reforms that would introduce merit pay to public schools – a measure vehemently opposed by the teacher’s union. He suddenly found himself fending off attacks from all directions that were saying he hated nurses, firefighters, schools and kids. Technical issues like the importance of redistricting got swamped by the rhetoric.
The lessons seems clear.
1. Gerrymandering needs to be the focus, not general ‘reform’.
2. Any initiative needs to be preceded by a grass roots campaign that reveals exactly how cynical, corrupting and anti-democratic the process really is.
3. The focus of this campaign should be illustrating the way gerrymandering destroys the integrity of the vote for everybody. It’s not about Democrat vs. Republican. It’s about incumbent vs. voter, and is the thing that allows ‘representatives’ to disregard a majority of citizens in favor of narrow special interests.
4. The backing needs to come from a diverse group of citizens. This may be easier done that imagined. After all, even the ‘winners’ (i.e. those who support the traditional positions of a state’s dominant party) are likely to get marginalized in practice by party politics that cater to a limited group of well endowed contributers. For example, plenty of Democrats have been apoplectic with rage at the spinelessness of Nancy Pelosi, and her steadfast refusal to act like an opposition leader worth the name. Since her victory in 2006, she has not acted like someone worried about what could happen to her at the ballot box if she refuses to do what she was elected to do.
5. The issue needs to be framed as the mother of all reforms, the basis for unwinding the corrosive culture that has dominated our politics since the early 90′s, and the restoration of the government as a viable and healthy civic institution.
The defeat of Prop. 77 in California (2005) illuminates the issue to a degree.
1. It was presented as ‘redistricting reform’, which is an awfully general goal, as opposed to a more specific ban on gerrymandering.
2. General ends were combined with a very specific approach (the creation of a 3 member panel of retired judges).
3. The net result was the defenders of the status quo could avoid discussion of the real issue by playing up potential issues with the three retired, probably white, probably male, probably conservative, and definitely upper middle class judges that would hold sway over a very diverse population.
4. Governor Schwarzenegger, who was in a position to educate the voters on what was really at stake, overplayed his hand by making Prop. 77 one of four pillars in a reform agenda. Elsewhere, the same agenda took on the ability of unions to use dues for political lobbying while pushing for educational reforms that would introduce merit pay to public schools – a measure vehemently opposed by the teacher’s union. He suddenly found himself fending off attacks from all directions that were saying he hated nurses, firefighters, schools and kids. Technical issues like the importance of redistricting got swamped by the rhetoric.
The lessons seems clear.
1. Gerrymandering needs to be the focus, not general ‘reform’.
2. Any initiative needs to be preceded by a grass roots campaign that reveals exactly how cynical, corrupting and anti-democratic the process really is.
3. The focus of this campaign should be illustrating the way gerrymandering destroys the integrity of the vote for everybody. It’s not about Democrat vs. Republican. It’s about incumbent vs. voter, and is the thing that allows ‘representatives’ to disregard a majority of citizens in favor of narrow special interests.
4. The backing needs to come from a diverse group of citizens. This may be easier done that imagined. After all, even the ‘winners’ (i.e. those who support the traditional positions of a state’s dominant party) are likely to get marginalized in practice by party politics that cater to a limited group of well endowed contributers. For example, plenty of Democrats have been apoplectic with rage at the spinelessness of Nancy Pelosi, and her steadfast refusal to act like an opposition leader worth the name. Since her victory in 2006, she has not acted like someone worried about what could happen to her at the ballot box if she refuses to do what she was elected to do.
5. The issue needs to be framed as the mother of all reforms, the basis for unwinding the corrosive culture that has dominated our politics since the early 90′s, and the restoration of the government as a viable and healthy civic institution.
Jon,
I am a little curious as to how you see this community, in particular, participating in propagating or instituting any ideas produced as a result of the conversations on this site..as oposed to simply stating an agenda or a series of opinions. This question is spurred from your comment “how do we do this…” We being the key word, I think. I only say this because the question is extremely loaded, and can be understood as an abstract hypothetical or as a call to arms.
I guess what I am saying is…do you see this to be nothing more than an excercise or is the goal to materialize the collective brain power of the community somehow/some way?
Just curious.
As to the question, I will say that there seems to be a model in action now, with the National Popular Vote Bill. I do not know the exacts of how this bill was first devised, but my understanding is that the idea was developed in academia and was eventually tested in one state, Maryland, which was then the first state to pass the legislation. How it made its way from the idea to a piece of passed legislation can be found out easily I would assume, and used as a model for the Gerrymandering/California legislation. No sense in re-inventing the wheel.
Also, to the benefit of said legislation, the argument can always be easily framed as an overhaul of individual representation in the electoral process. The National Popular Vote Bill and the California/Gerrymandering Bill, when paired as legislation in each individual state would overhaul the way elections are run and the tone and content of the discussion surrounding them.
I, for one, would be interested in hearing an argument against it. It seems a difficult one to make, but I am sure it is out there…grating on one’s sense of balance in the world.
Jon,
I am a little curious as to how you see this community, in particular, participating in propagating or instituting any ideas produced as a result of the conversations on this site..as oposed to simply stating an agenda or a series of opinions. This question is spurred from your comment “how do we do this…” We being the key word, I think. I only say this because the question is extremely loaded, and can be understood as an abstract hypothetical or as a call to arms.
I guess what I am saying is…do you see this to be nothing more than an excercise or is the goal to materialize the collective brain power of the community somehow/some way?
Just curious.
As to the question, I will say that there seems to be a model in action now, with the National Popular Vote Bill. I do not know the exacts of how this bill was first devised, but my understanding is that the idea was developed in academia and was eventually tested in one state, Maryland, which was then the first state to pass the legislation. How it made its way from the idea to a piece of passed legislation can be found out easily I would assume, and used as a model for the Gerrymandering/California legislation. No sense in re-inventing the wheel.
Also, to the benefit of said legislation, the argument can always be easily framed as an overhaul of individual representation in the electoral process. The National Popular Vote Bill and the California/Gerrymandering Bill, when paired as legislation in each individual state would overhaul the way elections are run and the tone and content of the discussion surrounding them.
I, for one, would be interested in hearing an argument against it. It seems a difficult one to make, but I am sure it is out there…grating on one’s sense of balance in the world.
AJ- I know it’s a loaded queston, but you seem to have answered it in some sense. If we could link the anti-gerrymander ideas to the National Popular vote bill, we would have the vehicle.
AJ- I know it’s a loaded queston, but you seem to have answered it in some sense. If we could link the anti-gerrymander ideas to the National Popular vote bill, we would have the vehicle.
Jon,
Regarding the “who’s we” question above: you should be aware of Californians for Electoral Reform. They have been interested in supporting the National Electoral Vote initiative (which passed the California Legislature before the Governor vetoed it). They are a bona fide grassroots organization which might be interested in participating in an alliance to do the kind of ballot proposition you have in mind.
Jon,
Regarding the “who’s we” question above: you should be aware of Californians for Electoral Reform. They have been interested in supporting the National Electoral Vote initiative (which passed the California Legislature before the Governor vetoed it). They are a bona fide grassroots organization which might be interested in participating in an alliance to do the kind of ballot proposition you have in mind.
er … I meant National Popular Vote … that’s the whole point really
er … I meant National Popular Vote … that’s the whole point really
Another Jon,
I believe the strongest arguments in favor of gerrymandering come from folks like the ACLU, who argue that it provides an essential tool for protecting minority rights. It’s an ends-justify-the-means position that tacitly acknowledges how bad the practice is in principle, while suggesting that it can still be useful “in the right hands”.
Knowing that labor unions also have a big stake in the partisan status quo, along with trial lawyers, public educators and old-line environmentalists, you can also expect to hear from them that gerrymandering, distasteful as it may be, is a necessary evil that’s a vital part of keeping the Rotten Right from turing America into a scorched earth theocracy administered by neo-Fascists and their army of domestic spies (assuming you live in a state dominated by a Democratic machine.)
Vested interests in states controlled by Republicans can find equally compelling arguments for preserving an obviously flawed system if it appears to serve the greater good of keeping godless monsters like abortionists, queers and socialists from destroying America in a fit of self-loathing pique by handing the keys to terrorists, illegals, drug dealers and flag-burners (but only after taking away all our guns.)
Of course, a significant number of Americans have taken an increasingly dim view of this posturing. They’re grown ups, after all, and have real problems to deal with. Like the shifting goalposts of retirement; the onerous costs of college for their kids; an online world of two-way mirrors that redefine ‘privacy’ in one way terms; the basic security of their jobs in an arbitrary At Will employment culture; the very real fear of being edged out of the health care system whenever they need it most, and so on.They feel that their basic dignity and powers of self-determination are quietly evaporating, and they don’t know how to get them back. What they do know is that unless you’re part of a very special interest, Washington isn’t doing you any favors.
But as Leonard Cohen noted, there’s a crack in everything; that’s how the light gets in. In an especially elegant twist of fate, the root of the current problem can also be the solution, since gerrymandering – and the well founded anger it can inspire – is truly the Achilles Heel of the current political establishment (on both sides).
When people realize exactly what it is, and how it operates, they’re universally appalled. They recognize the supreme cynicism of those who engage in the practice, and see it for what it is: a systematic and calculated degradation of the vote – destroying fundamental accountability in elected officials, while reducing congressional elections to expensive and time consuming charades.
But because the practice of gerrymandering is so obscure, technical and rarely mentioned, conversations about political reform have focused on more easily grasped ideas like term limits, publicly financed elections, financial disclosure laws, and other tactics aimed at curbing the quid pro quo between elected officials and private interests. While this is good, it’s not good enough, since elected officials are surprisingly happy to play along with most ‘reforms’, provided they don’t threaten the basic security of their seats (more than 90% of which are now considered ‘safe’ for their incumbents.)
And while there are various groups pressing for reform, the seem to be (largely) preaching to the converted – which, as you can imagine, is a fairly wonky group.
Given my own background in advertising, I think real grass-roots change will have to start with a campaign, though obviously not one that needs a big media buy. Instead, it will need a great piece of content that illuminates the practice in visual terms, and drives traffic to a website offering an avenue for involvement to the freshly engaged.
For the promo piece, here are links for what I have in mind, at least in terms of tone, aesthetics and design.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1229418
http://www.huesforalice.com/bbs/
The first is the opening credits sequence from the recent (and otherwise forgettable) film ‘The Kingdom’, where we see seven decades of US / Saudi relations condensed into 3 minutes and change. The second is an examination of the rhetoric vs. the reality of public surveillance.
So what next? One idea is to partner with an Lawrence Lessig’s ‘Change Congress’ movement. (http://change-congress.org/about/)
Mr. Lessig is a fantastically smart guy (Professor of Law at Stanford, and the founder of Creative Commons) who is already dealing with the core issues of all social progress being hamstrung by a corrupted Congressional body. Because of his dedication to copyright reform, he’s gained enormous credibility online.
He’s made an outstanding start with Change Congress, but I’m afraid that he’s missing that linchpin issue that gets people in the door and unifies his agenda. The Gerrymander Problem, if presented correctly, could be just the thing to get this catalyzed. Happily, his own organization recognizes that they don’t have all the answers, which is why they set it us as a clearinghouse for a broader range of initiatives.
In the meantime, it’s important to do exactly what people are doing here – discuss, ask questions, provide links, exchange views, and develop general consensus about the issue, about the barriers to understanding, about the enthusiasm vs. reservations people feel towards certain solutions (e.g. the shortest split line algorithm vs. a panel of judges).
Jon – any chance you’d like to set up a dedicated form? Ultimately, we’d want the conversation to illuminate the following, and would like to draw from the obviously well-informed cross section of people you’ve attracted to flesh things out.
1. General history, definitions and a list of particularly abusive examples.
2. The supporting legal landscape (How do people get away with it? What SCOTUS decisions, or lack thereof protect current practices? Which states, due to the presence of direct initiatives, offer a starting point for reform?)
3. Ideas about which Constitutional provisions could be used to mount challenges.
4. Details on the opposition – who is clinging to the old system and why? Can some be convinced that a reformed system will serve them better?
5. A collection of redistricting options, with pros and cons for each.
I’d be happy to use my own skills as a writer / producer to develop a piece. This group could vet and sling arrows (Morgan included) and we could take the whole thing to LL / C-C as a means to drive his fantastically well-branded project.
Thoughts?
Another Jon,
I believe the strongest arguments in favor of gerrymandering come from folks like the ACLU, who argue that it provides an essential tool for protecting minority rights. It’s an ends-justify-the-means position that tacitly acknowledges how bad the practice is in principle, while suggesting that it can still be useful “in the right hands”.
Knowing that labor unions also have a big stake in the partisan status quo, along with trial lawyers, public educators and old-line environmentalists, you can also expect to hear from them that gerrymandering, distasteful as it may be, is a necessary evil that’s a vital part of keeping the Rotten Right from turing America into a scorched earth theocracy administered by neo-Fascists and their army of domestic spies (assuming you live in a state dominated by a Democratic machine.)
Vested interests in states controlled by Republicans can find equally compelling arguments for preserving an obviously flawed system if it appears to serve the greater good of keeping godless monsters like abortionists, queers and socialists from destroying America in a fit of self-loathing pique by handing the keys to terrorists, illegals, drug dealers and flag-burners (but only after taking away all our guns.)
Of course, a significant number of Americans have taken an increasingly dim view of this posturing. They’re grown ups, after all, and have real problems to deal with. Like the shifting goalposts of retirement; the onerous costs of college for their kids; an online world of two-way mirrors that redefine ‘privacy’ in one way terms; the basic security of their jobs in an arbitrary At Will employment culture; the very real fear of being edged out of the health care system whenever they need it most, and so on.They feel that their basic dignity and powers of self-determination are quietly evaporating, and they don’t know how to get them back. What they do know is that unless you’re part of a very special interest, Washington isn’t doing you any favors.
But as Leonard Cohen noted, there’s a crack in everything; that’s how the light gets in. In an especially elegant twist of fate, the root of the current problem can also be the solution, since gerrymandering – and the well founded anger it can inspire – is truly the Achilles Heel of the current political establishment (on both sides).
When people realize exactly what it is, and how it operates, they’re universally appalled. They recognize the supreme cynicism of those who engage in the practice, and see it for what it is: a systematic and calculated degradation of the vote – destroying fundamental accountability in elected officials, while reducing congressional elections to expensive and time consuming charades.
But because the practice of gerrymandering is so obscure, technical and rarely mentioned, conversations about political reform have focused on more easily grasped ideas like term limits, publicly financed elections, financial disclosure laws, and other tactics aimed at curbing the quid pro quo between elected officials and private interests. While this is good, it’s not good enough, since elected officials are surprisingly happy to play along with most ‘reforms’, provided they don’t threaten the basic security of their seats (more than 90% of which are now considered ‘safe’ for their incumbents.)
And while there are various groups pressing for reform, the seem to be (largely) preaching to the converted – which, as you can imagine, is a fairly wonky group.
Given my own background in advertising, I think real grass-roots change will have to start with a campaign, though obviously not one that needs a big media buy. Instead, it will need a great piece of content that illuminates the practice in visual terms, and drives traffic to a website offering an avenue for involvement to the freshly engaged.
For the promo piece, here are links for what I have in mind, at least in terms of tone, aesthetics and design.
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/1229418
http://www.huesforalice.com/bbs/
The first is the opening credits sequence from the recent (and otherwise forgettable) film ‘The Kingdom’, where we see seven decades of US / Saudi relations condensed into 3 minutes and change. The second is an examination of the rhetoric vs. the reality of public surveillance.
So what next? One idea is to partner with an Lawrence Lessig’s ‘Change Congress’ movement. (http://change-congress.org/about/)
Mr. Lessig is a fantastically smart guy (Professor of Law at Stanford, and the founder of Creative Commons) who is already dealing with the core issues of all social progress being hamstrung by a corrupted Congressional body. Because of his dedication to copyright reform, he’s gained enormous credibility online.
He’s made an outstanding start with Change Congress, but I’m afraid that he’s missing that linchpin issue that gets people in the door and unifies his agenda. The Gerrymander Problem, if presented correctly, could be just the thing to get this catalyzed. Happily, his own organization recognizes that they don’t have all the answers, which is why they set it us as a clearinghouse for a broader range of initiatives.
In the meantime, it’s important to do exactly what people are doing here – discuss, ask questions, provide links, exchange views, and develop general consensus about the issue, about the barriers to understanding, about the enthusiasm vs. reservations people feel towards certain solutions (e.g. the shortest split line algorithm vs. a panel of judges).
Jon – any chance you’d like to set up a dedicated form? Ultimately, we’d want the conversation to illuminate the following, and would like to draw from the obviously well-informed cross section of people you’ve attracted to flesh things out.
1. General history, definitions and a list of particularly abusive examples.
2. The supporting legal landscape (How do people get away with it? What SCOTUS decisions, or lack thereof protect current practices? Which states, due to the presence of direct initiatives, offer a starting point for reform?)
3. Ideas about which Constitutional provisions could be used to mount challenges.
4. Details on the opposition – who is clinging to the old system and why? Can some be convinced that a reformed system will serve them better?
5. A collection of redistricting options, with pros and cons for each.
I’d be happy to use my own skills as a writer / producer to develop a piece. This group could vet and sling arrows (Morgan included) and we could take the whole thing to LL / C-C as a means to drive his fantastically well-branded project.
Thoughts?