The United States Constitution assigns state representation in the House of Representatives according to population. This is called “proportional representation.” The greater the population of the state, the more representatives that state has (every state gets at least one.) In states with more than one representative, the state must be carved up into voting districts equal to the total number of representatives, with each representative assigned to each district.
The states’ legislatures then carve up the state into voting districts equal to the number of that state’s representatives. Typically, the state legislators try to carve up the state to better the prospects for whichever party or political faction holds the most power. This is called “gerrymandering.”
Everyone agrees its a corrupt process, or at least less than ideal. Here is what the Washington Post says about gerrymandering, followed by its proposed solution:
There is an enormous paradox at the heart of American democracy. Congress is deeply and stubbornly unpopular. On average, between 10 and 15 percent of Americans approve of Congress – on a par with public support for traffic jams and cockroaches. And yet, in the 2016 election, only eight incumbents – eight out of a body of 435 representatives – were defeated at the polls.
If there is one silver bullet that could fix American democracy, it’s getting rid of gerrymandering – the now commonplace practice of drawing electoral districts in a distorted way for partisan gain. It’s also one of a dwindling number of issues that principled citizens – Democrat and Republican – should be able to agree on.
I am old enough to remember when Democrats held Congress by huge majorities. I don’t remember any Leftist complaining about gerrymandering then. Now that Republicans are competitive, they want to get rid of it. Ok, so what's their plan? Here is how the Left-leaning Washington Post would fix it:
As a result, districts from the Illinois 4th to the North Carolina 12th often look like spilled inkblots rather than coherent voting blocs. They are anything but accidental. The Illinois 4th, for example, is nicknamed “the Latin Earmuffs,” because it connects two predominantly Latino areas by a thin line that is effectively just one road. In so doing, it packs Democrats into a contorted district, ensuring that those voters cast ballots in a safely Democratic preserve. The net result is a weakening of the power of Latino votes and more Republican districts than the electoral math should reasonably yield. Because Democrats are packed together as tightly as possible in one district, Republicans have a chance to win surrounding districts even though they are vastly outnumbered geographically.
Second, fixing gerrymandering is getting easier. Given the right parameters, computer models can fairly apportion citizens into districts that are diverse, competitive and geographically sensible – ensuring that minorities are not used as pawns in a national political game. These efforts can be bolstered by stripping district drawing powers from partisan legislators and putting them into the hands of citizen-led commissions that are comprised by an equal number of Democrat- and Republican-leaning voters. Partisan politics is to be exercised within the districts, not during their formation. But gerrymandering intensifies every decade regardless, because it’s not a politically “sexy” issue. When’s the last time you saw a march against skewed districting?
The highlights are mine.
First, note how the Post assumes Latinos are automatic Democrat voters. This is racist and insulting in itself.
Now consider the solution; computer apportioning by “diversity” (i.e., race), competitiveness (ideology), and geography. This means that a racial and ideological test will have to be applied to each voter before district lines are drawn. The idea that voting preference is predetermined by genetic makeup is blatantly racist. Yet race and ideology are to be a defining characteristic of the Post’s new system. Does it make any difference whether the process is determined by “partisan legislators” or [non-partisan?] “citizen-led commissions” if the process itself is corrupt?
I have no problem with computer modeling. I do have a problem with collectivism. The power of the vote is individual, not collective. There is no such thing as “the power of Latino votes,” or of white votes or blacks votes or and other group assignment. All votes are equally individual (one-person-one-vote) and equally meaningful (or meaningless, to be realistic). There is only the power of the individual votes of individuals, each of whom possess his or her own independent rational mind possessing the capacity to judge for herself.
Gerrymandering is like the weather: everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it. Proposals to get rid of it always go nowhere. Maybe it’s in part because the solutions are worse than the problem. The Washington Post’s cure is certainly worse than the disease. You think it’s bad now, when lines are drawn by incumbent politicians? Wait until private citizens start divvying up Congressional delegations according to race and ideology!
The U.S. Constitution mandates that proportional representation shall be determined by population based on a census. Nothing more. (see Article I, section 2, clause 3 and Amendment XIV, section 2) The only fair way to divide up the districts is to follow the Constitution; count people regardless of race, ideology, or any other group characteristic. A computer program can easily do it. All you need is a programmer with a copy of the latest census.
Related Reading:
Voting Rights are Not the ‘Most Fundamental Right’—or Even a Fundamental Right
Memo to John D. Atlas: How About Let's Not Suppress Anybody's Vote, or Voice
Racism is Alive and Thriving on the Left
No comments:
Post a Comment