As American as apple pie, slavery, and Indian Removal. Partisan control of redrawing the district lines after each census is the ugly stepchild of direct representation. Redistricting was included in the constitution after the bitter imperial experience left the colonies only "virtually" represented in the British Parliament that made decisions affecting the empire. The idea was also to avoid the "rotten borough" syndrome in England where members of parliament were often elected by a handful of voters and had much greater power than MPs of urban areas. So, our system solved some old problems but created a new one. Leaving the power to reapportion seats in the House of Representatives in the hands of partisan legislators has led to the saying that "politicians choose their voters, rather than voters choosing their leaders."
Ironically, it was first used (and named) by rising politicians of the Democratic-Republican party like Elbridge Gerry to marginalize the aristocratic Federalists. This famous picture proports to show DR-favored areas as a salamander enveloping the older Federalist strongholds of Massachusetts. This was a driver in the Hartford Convention that destroyed the first two party system in America.
Today, according to ThinkProgress, gerrymandering has managed to preserve the bankrupt ideology of "conservatism" in spite of the will of the people. Federalism, the delegation of governmental powers to units smaller than the sovereign state, has meant in practice that oftentimes when Progressive leaders take over in Washington, regressive leaders sneak into state capitols during midterm elections. I will not try and make the case that Democratic politicians do not take advantage when in power to gerrymander, but republicans go out of their way to be obnoxious about it. For example, after the 2000 census Texas finished redistricting in a way that conformed to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 but somehow state republicans managed to redo it after taking control in the 2002 midterms to dilute Democratic areas and capture 5 extra seats. The districts they drew made the salamander above look quaint by comparison.
The other option for apportioning legislative seats is to do it proportionally, but of course that would probably require voting a slate of party candidates instead of individuals and so often you hear voters say they vote the man (or woman) and not the party.
But, according to Mother Jones:
Most Americans voted for Democratic representation in the House. The votes are still being counted, but as of now it looks as if Democrats have a slight edge in the popular vote for House seats, 49 percent-48.2 percent, according to an analysis by the Washington Post. Still, as the Post's Aaron Blake notes, the 233-195 seat majority the GOP will likely end up with represents the GOP's "second-biggest House majority in 60 years and their third-biggest since the Great Depression."So how did Republicans keep their House majority despite more Americans voting for the other party—something that has only happened three times in the last hundred years, according to political analyst Richard Winger? Because they drew the lines. (Emphasis mine)
So, if your ideas suck and the majority knows having you in power will harm them; just abuse your power and take over anyway. Who's gonna stop you? The United States is stuck, again, with a group of lunatics running the asylum.
No comments:
Post a Comment