4 ms·
This is wrong on so many levels. First and foremost, the idea that "elected representatives" get to pick who votes for them represents the anthesis of democrat
by alexqgb 14y ago
This is wrong on so many levels.
First and foremost, the idea that "elected representatives" get to pick who votes for them represents the anthesis of democratically elected representation. It's like a parachute that opens on impact.
Your second error is thinking that gerrymandering simply seeks to place voters from each party in their own districts. What it actually aims to do is advantage one party over the other by marginalizing the other entirely. This can be the case even when the marginalized party actually represents a clear majority of the voters, as happened in the last election.
The third problem is that once a party controls a district exclusively, it inevitably becomes more extreme. Since there's no danger that a firebrand zealot who goes too far will attract challenger from the other party, the contests in "safe" districts select for ideological purity rather that the ability to negotiate with others - which is what's actually the most important thing in people whose whole job is to identify workable compromises that both sides can live with.
An even more insidious effect of the "safe" seat is that it aligns the interests of a party and its donors against those of individual representatives and the represented. Under the current corruption-facilitating system, a politician that pisses off donors or party leadership by putting constituent's interests first can be safely challenged from within his own party without the party risking the loss of the seat. Enforcing "discipline" becomes a lot riskier when retaliating against a "wayward" member could hand the seat to the other party.
You're correct to note that open primaries in California have been a positive development. But you mustn't forget that they were introduced as part and parcel of a broader electoral reform effort that also ended partisan gerrymandering, first for statewide offices, then for national representatives. Of the two reforms, the end to gerrymandering was the more important, by a wide margin.
You may disagree, but that's just a reflection of your own limited understanding. The savviest politicians in the state (correctly) recognized and end to gerrymandering as the greatest thereat to their illegitimate power, and fought against that far harder than they opposed open primaries.
Of course when it comes to open primaries and an end to gerrymandering, electoral reform is not either / or. It's BOTH. And while we're at it, we need to bounce any Senators who block filibuster reform. Getting all three done together would give the people vastly more power over Congress, and by extension, the entire Federal government.
- aneth4 14y agoHow do we decide on districts? There will always be a possibility of bias and there is no "fair" way to divide districts. There is more random - that's about the best we can do. No districting system ensures a majority vote wins a majority representation, nor is it intended to. I agree with your point on gerrymandering's biggest issue being the overall bias toward a party, however a proper primary system I believe moderates the parties, or at least provides one moderate and one extreme choice from one side of the electorate rather than two extreme choices from both sides. This ultimately represents people well. Frankly I don't want a choice between a right wing extremist and a left wing extremist. I want a choice between two reasonable politicians, and I believe fixing the primary system would have a far better impact than worrying about gerrymandering.
- alexqgb 14y agoThere's no absolutely fair way to do it. As you note, the best way to do it is simply the best we can do. California's system isn't simple, but it is viable, and now that it exists, it can serve as a template for others. It's not perfect, but here's the thing; what's doable is for better than the current norm, and is actually fairly good. Certainly good enough to mitigate the biggest problems created by gerrymandering (i.e. sharpened partisan divides, undue concentration of power in national parties, unholy amounts of leverage for corrupt corporate influencers.) Freed from these pernicious issues, I like to think that the country will reach a level of sanity that makes the inevitable need for periodic reforms to the redistricting process a normal and manageable part of governing. The really hard part is persuading recalcitrant legislators to surrender their undue power over the electorate. That's obviously easier said than done, but the process that will eventually force their hands is already unfolding. For more on that, see here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5001625 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5001625
- aneth4 14y agoThat link is rather optimistic. Don't get me wrong, I prefer random districts to gerrymandered. However I don't think gerrymandering is the cause of the problems you mention - partisanship, corruption, and party power. When there are problems, it's easy to pick some popular target to take the blame. The root of the problem is the primary system, which is only attended by the most partisan. An open primary reduces significantly all of these factors. Parties must attempt to carefully support two candidates, and lose control of who can run and vote in the nominating process. Special interests can be weakened since introducing a primary challenger no longer means the candidate loses the general. Partisanship is caused by the candidates appealing to the base, who tend to vote strongly in primaries. If it's possible to come in second in the primary with the support of more moderate voters, then still win the election, more moderates will win overall. Fixing gerrymandering alone will not solve these issues, and has the potential to make policy erratic and electoral choices too stark. Reasonable districting along with open primaries could go a long way toward ameliorating these issues. Interesting discussion.