Let's talk of gerrymandering

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

"America is not a democracy, it's a republic". I've heard this adage way too often, and it has boggled me at times, admittedly. I mean, what's wrong with direct democracy?

Let's look at this.

Yes, I guess I'm talking of gerrymandering. The elephant in the room, a problem that has been going on for decades and has distorted democracy in America and both sides have indulged in it, but relatively little has been discussed of it. That perverse process that makes only a few states or districts matter, because all the rest have already been decided - hence, the disproportionate importance of those few undecided states. I mean, who would've even known Iowa and its corndogs existed, if it wasn't the first state to vote in the primaries?

Surely democracy must be very important to Americans, their politicians and their leaders? Then what sort of democracy creates safe seats for most of the members and all that is left to do is for the party to choose who will contest the safe seat and that choice is not done democratically?

Just look at these:

Hillary Clinton has the votes of 500 Democratic establishment 'superdelegates' locked up
"Superdelegates are party brass who can cast their vote outside of caucuses and primaries. They were put in place 1982 to ensure the Democrats didn't nominate another dud like George McGovern."

And quite curiously,

Hillary Calls for End to Electoral College

Let's face it. It's not going to happen, especially if she's elected, which means in about 5 years she'll be running for re-election. Wanting to end electoral college would be a suicide for her. The likes of Bernie Sanders would be sure to breathe down her neck if that were to happen.

Speaking of Sanders,

The Best Way for Bernie to Win: An Electoral College Agreement

Weird, huh? I mean... I don't know, to someone who lives in Switzerland, where direct democracy has worked for decades just fine, all of this seems rather bizarre. But not surprising - no way. Of course it's understandable that the political establishment would do anything in their powers to preserve their control of the political process. That's logical and expected. But that's not democracy.

But of course, we already knew America wasn't a democracy, right? It's oligarchy *cough* a republic!

Comments

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

From the last link:

"Did you know that in 48 states, a candidate can choose electors based on a pledge to vote for the opposing candidate, if the opposing candidate is in a better position than she or he is to win the Electoral College?"

*Scratches head*

We're still talking about democratic elections here, right?...

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

It's present in the name of the party, so that must be the case.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

We don't elect the president, we elect electors to represent us, as we're a representative democracy.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

What's democratic about a superdelegate pledging their vote to Hillary well in advance to the election, if I've elected them to represent me, and I haven't made up my mind about whom to vote for yet? What's democratic about someone deciding for me?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What's democratic about a superdelegate pledging their vote to Hillary well in advance to the election, if I've elected them to represent me, and I haven't made up my mind about whom to vote for yet?

They're a representative of your chosen political party.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

How do they represent me, my stances and my decisions on a particular issue, including who I want to be the presidential nominee of the party? No one has asked me if I prefer candidate A or B. They just make an assumption that all their constituents would want candidate A? What if I want candidate B? How am I represented?

This is oligarchy.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's not oligarchy, as you have the ability to vote in these primaries even though they don't need your approval. Plus, the parties themselves have democratic processes to decide how things like superdelegates are used and how primaries are run.

If you're a member of the party, your representation actually runs down to the town or even precinct level. It's a lot more complex than we're giving it credit for.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Still sounds like an oligarchic elite picking my decisions for me. Especially if I'm not a party member.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Still sounds like an oligarchic elite picking my decisions for me.

Not sure how to convince you otherwise, unless you think even people on the precinct level are rich oligarchs.

Especially if I'm not a party member.

You are free to join a party or write in someone you'd prefer.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

What if I don't want to have anything to do with any party? Why should I have to join a party so that my vote could matter at all?

No, you're certainly not going to convince me that the current system of the electoral college is representative enough for the entire populace. It terribly reeks of the orchestrated type of political process that we're having here - the only difference is that our elites are doing it behind closed doors, while in your case the whole thing has been institutionalized.

Why need all these complex electoral systems? Why can't everyone just vote and all votes go into the same pot, and then be counted? Why was George W Bush elected president in 2000, even though he had half a million votes less than his opponent?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

What if I don't want to have anything to do with any party? Why should I have to join a party so that my vote could matter at all?

Most state allow you to participate in the primaries. Otherwise, you can vote in the general.

Why need all these complex electoral systems? Why can't everyone just vote and all votes go into the same pot, and then be counted?

Among other reasons, we're one nation, but also 50 individual states. Our state boundaries matter a lot, and part of our checks and balances is that we elect people to represent us in the Congress directly, but not directly for President. Thus, being able to have the President learn about individual state needs, expand representation beyond a handful of urban centers, and so on is a benefit.

Why was George W Bush elected president in 2000, even though he had half a million votes less than his opponent?

He received more electoral votes, which is how we elect the President.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You see now why these electoral votes don't make any sense to me. The president is a president of all Americans, not of the electoral college. Choosing a president of all Americans is not something that is a matter that every state decides for themselves. It should be a matter that every American decides for themselves. Congress election is one thing. But electing a president should be happening in the simplest way possible: put all votes in one pot, and then count them. Why should this be so complicated?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You see now why these electoral votes don't make any sense to me. The president is a president of all Americans, not of the electoral college.

No, our President is elected by the electoral college. He is the executive of the United States, who have representatives in each state elect him. In theory, he's not supposed to have direct connection to the popular vote at all.

But electing a president should be happening in the simplest way possible: put all votes in one pot, and then count them. Why should this be so complicated?

We're a united union of 50 individual states, that's why. Individual state interests matter.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

> In theory, he's not supposed to have direct connection to the popular vote at all

Well, that sucks. Because his executive actions have a direct connection to all the people, not just some party elites.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

And the people act as a check on the executive via the legislative branch.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Well, not really (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/16/obama-presidential-memoranda-executive-orders/20191805/).

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That a President has executive power does not negate the fact that the legislature can act as a check against it.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Sigh. This is going nowhere.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

I still don't know if I could be convinced that direct democracy is really a good idea (even the convincingly successful Swiss model is a representative democracy, albeit one with a powerful and effective optional "direct" component to it.) But certainly the "representative" model at play in the U.S. (and many western nations) does not always do a good job of addressing the opinions of every citizen, and that is, of course, by design. As progressive as the U.S. Constitutional framers were for their time, many of them still held incredibly classist, racist, and sexist ideas about who should be able to vote (and indeed, one can read their other writings to see the disdain in which they held the so-called "mob" whose vagaries and easily manipulated emotions might cause harmful legislation to arise based on fear-mongering and rumor.)

Of course, in our modern world, we look back at such attitudes and reject the obviously bigoted approach. But then again, one might ask: is there merit in distancing the levers of government, even if only slightly, from the whims and easily inflamed passions of the masses? If all one ever looked at was a Trump rally, one would find it hard to support the idea of direct democracy. ;)

I actually agree with you that it is time to let citizens have a more direct influence. There are still, though, some arguments against moving towards a more direct approach in all spheres. For example, our senate, once quite distinct from the directly elected House of Representatives, was meant to be a more deliberate body, less easily swayed by popular opinion or fad, because the members did not need to worry about popular elections, sound bites, or the mentality that thinks that a bumper sticker contains comprehensive policy solutions. Even though the Senate was not even remotely "direct" in its processes, it was counterbalanced by the much more direct House, and together they provided (in my opinion) and effective and reasoned body of lawmakers. We changed that chamber from a body selected by elected officials into a body made up of elected officials, and I think our legislative process has suffered for it. So, I can reject the horrific bigotry of some of the "founding fathers," but still recognize the wisdom in placing certain brakes on the political process so that it isn't quite so easily steered by whatever popular outrage has gripped the imagination of a majority.

But that digression aside, I do agree with you that we can (and ought) to do better. But I think the elephant in the room isn't merely something like gerrymandering, or the electoral college, or even a so-called "representative republic." I'd argue that these are but symptoms of a larger problem: our either-or, binary, and adversarial system that is so closely entwined with the specific details (and subsequent myths!) of our founding that they almost seem to have become a part of our national character. Ultimately, something needs to be done about that before any real change towards a more representative system will have a chance.

BUT:

That doesn't mean I'm not in favor of triaging some of these symptoms in the meantime. Gerrymandering has to be dealt with, as does access to elected officials (made worse by the Citizens United decision,) and the electoral college is a relic of a time without modern technology, and ought to go as well. Hell, a good place to start would be just getting rid of the whole "first past the post" thing entirely, and doing something similar to Australia, where proportional voting has allowed a greater variety of voices to be heard in government. That kind of diversity of thought might do wonders in arresting the seemingly inexorable slide of the so-called Overton window! A proportional representative system in our legislature might also finally break the stranglehold of the two party system. So there are things that might be done, but I think it requires really rethinking, maybe even at a fundamental level, our political processes. That kind of change is not, I think, going to come from the politicians (who have no reason to change the system) but a grass-roots movement that gets enough momentum might accomplish something there.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I still don't know if I could be convinced that direct democracy is really a good idea

It's a scary idea, isn't it? Especially for a society as heterogeneous as the American one (not that Switzerland is too homogeneous, but what does it matter).

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

"It's a scary idea, isn't it?"

Indeed. I'm reminded of a line from "The American President."

"America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad, 'cause it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say 'You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours.' You want to claim this land as the land of the free? Then the symbol of your country can't just be a flag; the symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag in protest. Show me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then, you can stand up and sing about the 'land of the free'."

We Americans talk a good game about the land of the free, and the home of the brave, but we're pretty quick to jettison freedom (and act very cowardly) the moment things get a little scary. (And before I'm accused of being a self-loathing American, I think this is not some unique American quality, but a human one. Yet America has continually held itself up as if we have some higher standard, some ideal that is uniquely, exceptionally, American. So it is by that standard we must be judged, and if that's not fair, well, maybe we shouldn't keep calling ourselves a shining city on the hill, but refusing to change the damn light bulbs.)

Direct democracy is a lot scarier, and it's harder... but maybe that's the point. We shouldn't do easy things, just because they're easy. We should do the right things, even if they're hard. Maybe, just maybe, Americans can admit that the founding fathers were wrong about something! Ultimately, we really don't have much of an excuse for continuing to fail to live up to our own purported ideals.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

We shouldn't do easy things, just because they're easy. We should do the right things, even if they're hard.

You paraphrase one of your slightly better Presidents here. Now all you need to do is get the modern equivalent of Marilyn Monroe to sing you Happy Birthday...or something similar.

You know, JFK and WJC had quite a lot in common, when you think about it. Oops, did I say that aloud?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

In order to have a working direct democracy, you'd need a society that is relatively intelligent, well-educated, mindful and responsible, politically active and experienced. And unfortunately, most societies are not like that - including ones of some economically advanced countries. In this sense, while direct democracy could be a useful tool for the most part in those few good occasions like the one that you're citing, in the majority of cases it's more like a dangerous weapon.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

I wonder if direct democracy is only viable up to the certain population level. If so, you could build a representative system on top of by that selecting members of one level of representation by lots of the members directly below it.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Sounds a lot like the Electoral College :)

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

How so?

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

I admit I'm not familiar in details with the way it's designed, but from what I've heard thus far, it's a vertical hierarchical structure, where people elect representatives who then vote for the president. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this sounds like selecting members of one level of representation directly, who then elect the top guy. Or am I reading your previous comment erroneously?

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Of course, in a representative system built upon a direct democracy, you could easily have a "President" elected by direct popular vote who is the highest executive in the government.

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's the idea of directness.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Our primary system is not one that's strictly democratic, it's done by the individual political parties. Most states have a democratic process in place to choose the delegates, but there is no requirement or actual expectation that voters choose who the general election candidate is.

Our districting system is based on the fact that so much of our representation comes via geography, not population. A proportional system would decimate the rural representation in this country, which is why we're unlikely to move to that sort of system. Still, the sort of political districting also allows for majority-minority districts and like-minded enclaves on both sides (my state actually improved its district borders somewhat in 2010, but it's still built specifically to mitigate the conservative pockets in the state).

I've been a proponent of shortest splitline (http://rangevoting.org/GerryExamples.html) for some time now, but even I recognize it won't "solve" the "problem" of nonproportional distribution, as that's not a solution that's viable for the United States. As you can basically fit Switzerland inside Oklahoma, though, it's not as if we could just transfer your system into ours.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Does that look "geographic" to you?



As for your size argument, it's tired. How about Oklahoma transferring the Swiss system to Oklahoma, then Kansas transferring the Swiss system to Kansas, then Iowa transferring the Swiss system to Iowa, and so on?

[garote]

They'd never adopt it piecemeal, for reasons I explained below.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It's geographic, yes. It uses geography to figure out who lives where.

As for your size argument, it's tired. How about Oklahoma transferring the Swiss system to Oklahoma, then Kansas transferring the Swiss system to Kansas, then Iowa transferring the Swiss system to Iowa, and so on?

It could happen, but why?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

No it isn't. It's arbitrary.

Why not?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No it isn't. It's arbitrary.

A lot goes into what makes a district. For example, many states have majority-minority districts that have a ripple effect for some of the "worst offenders." Often there's a desire for not splitting certain populations.

Why not?

Is there a reason we should consider the Swiss model superior?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

Look at the map. These districts don't make any sense. Gerrymandering distorts the elections.


Is there a reason we shouldn't?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Look at the map. These districts don't make any sense.

I don't disagree, but...

Gerrymandering distorts the elections.

...there's gerrymandering we like and gerrymandering we don't. And it has been suggested that gerrymandering does not significantly impact Congressional representation anyway, so it might just be a feel good change.

Is there a reason we shouldn't?

The combination of a lack of solid reason to change here combined with the Swiss model offering no improvements to our system is one.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I'm sure you don't want to change the current system. Actually I would be shocked it it were otherwise. Of course you don't want it changed, in your mind everything is just perfect with the current system. Even though it really isn't (https://politicalwire.com/2014/11/29/study-shows-how-gerrymandering-distorts-election-results/).

Aaand, I think I've by far exceeded my 3-comment limit with you at this point.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Of course you don't want it changed, in your mind everything is just perfect with the current system.

When did I say that? I even said I prefer a different districting method.

Aaand, I think I've by far exceeded my 3-comment limit with you at this point.

I mean, isn't this nonsense in particular getting old at this point?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

It's not nonsense, I'm doing it for the sake of my own mental health.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's unhealthy.

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

I assure you it's healthy both for the peace of the community, and for mine.

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

Actually you exceeded it only by 1 comment. :)

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

And it has been suggested that gerrymandering does not significantly impact Congressional representation anyway, so it might just be a feel good change.

As annoying as it is, the sources I've read do seem to suggest this. I still think there are ethical issues with having the same organizations drawing up districts participating in elections.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The perception of fairness is enough for me to want to see a change in any regard, but I also worry that the result of a change not being what people want will just result in more hand-wringing. I sometimes feel this is more an educational issue.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I didn't know you one for folding so easily to irrational whims. If something resolves a conflict of interest, it's worth doing in my opinion. There's plenty of methodology out there for unbiased redistricting.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

"And it has been suggested that gerrymandering does not significantly impact Congressional representation anyway"

Well, there really isn't a need I can see to wait until one party is able to gain a significant advantage from gerrymandering before making a change. It'd probably be too late by that time anyhow. Maybe the changes are just aesthetic, but perceptions do matter.

[garote]

Most of the time, when you hear the retort "it's a republic", it's because of the bickering that happens between the states. Once elected, state representatives are often measured by how well they can divert federal funds towards their state, or twist federal regulations to favor their state's economy. So it's not so much that the representatives are representing people on one side of the political spectrum or another, but their whole home state.

Nevertheless - even though the country is generally purple - even on a county by county basis within each state - there are way too many people who still perceive their home state as "all red with blue invaders" or vice-versa. So whether they honestly believe it or not, politicians have good reason to flame the fires of "red vs blue" in order to push voter turnout the way they wish, in the places they wish, and if possible to Gerrymander.

As a response, some states have created redistricting commissions with some form of political independence. It's a contested process almost by definition: The more obvious it is that an independent group or impartial rule set would benefit the underdog, the easier it is to accuse the underdog of playing politics and derail the effort. Sounds ironic, but... There ya go.

Switching the topic to presidential elections, the representative aspect is the Electoral College. Again, it exists because the states want to bludgeon each other. If California generally prefers a Democrat, then it will toss all 55 electoral college votes to the Democrat in the presidential race, to assert its will over the other states. On the other hand, many voters in California are disenfranchised by this. What if California went with a proportional system, awarding electoral college points based on percentage of popular vote? That would be more in keeping with Democracy.

Well, consider the situation of a smaller state. The state of North Carolina has about 1/4 the population of California, in about 1/3 of the land space. It gets 15 electoral college votes, and in the last election, all of those went to Romney. If California had gone with a proportional system in that same election, it would have awarded 33 electoral college votes to Obama and 20 to Romney. Total for the two states: 33 Obama, 35 Romney. Basically, it is in the interest of the smaller state to go winner-takes-all, to amplify their preference, and it is in the interest of California to stay winner-takes-all, to beat them back down. The only way to break this deadlock of interests is via some federal edict, which would have to come from (and be approved by) all the elected representatives of the states... So, you see the problem here. Everybody has to agree to disarm all at once, but every smaller state will attempt to argue for a state-by-state movement, and none of the large states will allow it to pass.

North Carolina, by the way, has about the same population as Switzerland. In a vote for the president, it would behoove Switzerland to behave the same way!

[garote]

So, the electoral college is a systemic distortion that we're stuck with for as long as the states are rivals. It's representatives and districts, but at least it's without the possibility of Gerrymandering: State lines are nailed down quite thoroughly at this point, and electoral college allocations only change when the population shifts. And though it sucks having that distortion built in - those 4.8 million disenfranchised Californians who voted for Romney for example - at least the artificial zones created by state lines are actual zones, and that can be a good thing.

If we managed to build a system so efficient that 319 million people could vote directly for or against all federal legislation, with no representatives in the middle, there would still be the question of who authors the legislation, and what their motives are. As direct democracy scales up, differences in population density can create some really bad decisions. (Basic off-the-cuff example: Los Angeles versus the Owens Valley.) And with no representatives to appeal or complain to, or send to jail or kick out of office, the ability to undo bad decisions can be severely limited. It's too easy to attack direct democracy as "mob rule", when the apparent solution is to grow a better mob - but even a well-educated and thoughtful mob can be self-serving and stubborn...

(My other favorite example: Proposition 13 in California. A measure sold to the public as "protect Grandma from being kicked out of her house", which has resulted in HUGE imbalances in tax rates that mostly favor entrenched large landowners, as well as wild swings in state tax income level and a boom-bust cycle for all state financing. I loathe Prop 13. There are several ways to completely eliminate the unfairness it creates, without poor little old grandma losing her house, but entrenched land owners savagely oppose all of them.)