Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite Save As Favorite View Article Stats
1 comment

OpEdNews Op Eds

Redistricting Reform: How Best to Tackle Ultra-Safe Districts

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

For years FairVote has drawn attention to the problem of lack of voter choice in our congressional elections. Our biannual reports Dubious Democracy and Monopoly Politics were among the key spurs toward recognition of the importance of the role of redistricting in tackling our pandemic of safe seats. As we pointed out in this year's edition of Dubious Democracy, we are currently experiencing the least competitive congressional elections in our nation's history, with nearly 99% incumbent re-election rates for five straight elections.

But some big foundations and reform players skipped over the parts of our analysis that didn't fit in with their view of what is practical. They went directly from our point that the political geography of our elections is the most important factor for winners and their victory margins to suggesting that the problem could be fixed through fairer redistricting. They failed to grasp that the problem of lopsided districts is largely rooted in use of winner-take-all elections in the red and blue partisan divide that defines most of our nation.

This November, some reformers pushed redistricting reform measures in Ohio and California. Both initiatives had serious money behind them, along with political stars like Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain and Common Cause's Chellie Pingree. And both went down in flames - California by 19% and Ohio by a whopping 40%.

So what now? We can't simply throw up our hand's and let the "people's house" lose all electoral connection with the American people. But we need to be both smarter and more open to challenging ideas. We must start with two key points about the limitations of any strategy founded on maintaining all single-member districts:
  • Winner-take-all gives huge power to whoever draws the district lines. Just changing how one draws them means taking the power over representation from one set of political elites and giving it to another. We should give that power to voters.

  • Winner-take-all districts simply cannot accommodate three fundamental principles of free and fair elections: universal voter choice, leadership accountability and fair representation.

That means anyone truly serious about the problem of lack of voter choice must confront that we have reached winner-take-all's endgame: it just doesn't work effectively in modern politics. We need some kind of multi-seat proportional voting method -- ones tested around the world and in a growing number of American cities where voters have several representatives and will likely elect a representative of their choice.

Even multi-seat districts need to be drawn fairly, however, and we recognize that some states may seek to reform redistricting before moving to proportional voting methods. Redistricting reformers should do the following:
  • Put more energy into the long slog of a congressional bill setting standards for all states at the same time - thus taking state-by-state partisan calculations off the map. Already more than 60 US House Members have signed onto such two such bills introduced this year.

  • Take the partisan edge out of proposals by not requiring "mid-decennial" redistricting, as tried in California and Ohio, and focusing primarily on reforming state legislative redistricting apart from congressional districting. Going after U.S. House districts can earn big dollars from those with partisan interests, but also spurs vigorous opposition.

  • Base arguments for reform on the corruption that takes place in the current process. It's simply wrong and corrupting to allow politicians to help their friends and hurt their enemies in what should be a public interest process.

  • Put traditional standards of compactness, maintaining county lines and complying with the Voting Rights Act over trying to create competition. Voters are unlikely to like "good gerrymandering" any more than the old gerrymanders. If competition is the goal, gerrymandering isn't the answer.

In whatever reform one does, however, we must support giving all voters access to fair representation and competitive choices, not just a select few. For such protection of voters, we must move beyond winner-take-all districts to electoral methods designed for today's world, not the horse-and-buggy society of two centuries ago.

 

www.fairvote.org

FairVote is a non-profit, non-partisan organization devoted to electoral reforms that respect every vote and ever voice. Signature proposals we have developed or advanced include proportional voting, instant runoff voting, ranked choice voting, the (more...)
 
Add this Page to Facebook!   Submit to Twitter   Submit to Reddit   Submit to Stumble Upon   Pin It!   Fark It!   Tell A Friend
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Democracy Lost: the Iowa Caucus, the New Hampshire Primary, and the Shortchanging of American Presidential Politics

Let's End Gerrymandering with Fair Voting for Congress

John Gideon, R.I.P. - and the "Gideon Initiative" for citizenship ownership of our elections

Was the Iowa Caucuses' Real Winner Not in the Race?

Clearing the Barr to a majority president with instant runoff voting

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
1 people are discussing this page, with 1 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

"Ohio went down by a whopping 40%." Yes, that's... by Charlie L on Saturday, Nov 19, 2005 at 10:44:14 AM