A path forward
We’ve talked about this before. We’ve talked about it all before. We are struggling to combat people that have no sense of shame. Doing so can be unsettling and confusing for those of us that operate in a world that has shame. Shame limits us and so there are suggestions that we shut off that portion of our mind that allows us to feel it. We fight fire with fire and guns with more guns. That’s not the answer in my opinion.
The gerrymandering of districts was originally designed to just provide one part with an advantage over the other, but it has done so much more and probably more than the architects of it originally intended. Those that study the competitiveness of House races have noticed something over time. Well under half are decided by ten points or less either way. Since the Supreme Court neutered the Voting Rights Act, the gap has been widening.
Of course, the Supreme Court is just one example of how gerrymandering has reared its ugly head. The Republicans have won exactly won election by majority since 1988. Yet, there is a 6-3 court on the conservative side and prominent Republicans are trying to convince us the country is center-right. What exactly is the evidence of that?
The damage is two-fold. Sure, we could look at this narrowly and say there are more Republicans in government than the demographics suggest there should be. Yet, that’s a small way to look at it. The secret lies in the non-competitive nature of those districts. Well over 300 of the 435 districts are currently non-competitive. If I don’t have to convince a majority to vote for me then I don’t have to be reasonable. I don’t have to compromise. In fact, the more extreme I can be the better.
If you want to fix what ails us you fix our democracy. Simply put, Congress needs to reflect the values of the people. If you look at individual planks of the legislation that passes the House (but not the Senate) then you’ll see that even a majority of people that consider themselves Republican consider them to be good ideas. So, it isn’t about Republicans vs. Democrats or any kind of a shift in the values that people actually have. Most people believe in fairness. Most people believe in compassion. Most people believe in human decency. We just have a system that rewards people that don’t believe in those things.
Those people then get to appoint our judges. Those judges then become the arbiters of justice. Sure, we notice huge trials like the Rittenhouse trial, but the key are the smaller ones no one pays attention to on a daily basis. They are the ones that incarcerate hundreds of thousands of people on drug charges or fail to protect women from would be predators. When heads repeatedly becomes tails it can catch up with you. When up is repeatedly force fed to us as down it takes its toll. People of a lesser mind come to believe justice is actually being served. People of a greater mind see the injustice and become either angry or apathetic. Neither serves us well.
We know how to fix it, but the question is whether we have the will to do it. We simply take the drawing of districts out of human hands. Studies have shown that computers can draw districts that can flip the switch. Instead of over 300 non-competitive districts we would have over 300 competitive ones. Politicians that just throw stink bombs into the process would be drummed out. I imagine some would adapt and some wouldn’t. What would remain would be a body politic that would reflect the real values of those that vote for them. Then come the judges and everyone else on down. It won’t happen overnight, but we didn’t get here overnight either. It just seems like we did.
Democracy is high maintenance. In the spirit of full disclosure, I have been a citizen of this country since 1923. I have never claimed to be the sharpest quill on the porcupine, but I have been paying attention and can recognize Fascism when it stares me in the face. If you nodded off during history class and don’t see the red flags, read The Strongmen. Would-be dictators use the same playbook. If we allow democracy to die, many citizens have no inkling what we will become, and believe me, they won’t like it. Become informed, do some critical thinking, and get thee to the poll and VOTE.
1Nick, computer drawn Congressional districts can work. Case in point, NV: https://nevada.hometownlocator.com/maps/congressional-districts.cfm
Gerrymandering aside, the rest of the QOP election shenanigans are more difficult to address since much of that is done by state legislatures, and with Moscow Mitch in the US Senate no federal solutions are likely anytime soon.
Fixing the Senate? Numerically maybe but constitutionally? Representative government does not happen when one lone individual in a field somewhere in Iowa has more clout in the Senate than the entire attendance at a Lakers game.
2The Senate doesn’t get fixed on that level without an amendment. The easy fix would be just to kill the filibuster. I don’t mind the theory of a more deliberative body but it is ridiculous to see the amount of legislation only to have things die in the Senate. If a majority wants it then it should happen.
I’m not sure how one would amend the Senate to account for population distribution without simply saying that some states get one senator and some get three or four. The concept of the rotten bourough comes to mind. You’d almost have to say that some people are currently virtually represented rather than actually represented.
I could see proposing a system where you divide the nation’s population 100 ways and then have a computer draw 100 equal districts in terms of population and then drop the concept of states as it pertains to representation in the Senate. Such a system might produce more accurate results but of course would require a major rewrite.
The issue is the tension between representing areas and representing people. One person one vote is such a simple concept yet seemingly so revolutionary. One of the successes of the right has been their ability to minimize the concerns and relative power of the urban voter. We are somehow less American and less important than the rural voter. Part of that is by design but I don’t think the framers imagined this much disparity.
3I like the idea, but the GOP would then start the Big Lie Part Deux over losing their seats!
4Nick, you ARE the wordsmith, so I will leave you with this thought for your next article: equal. By that I mean akin to the difference you note between “representing areas and representing people,” but a step toward equal representation. Ending the filibuster would be a step in the correct direction.
Maybe weighted value votes in the Senate where Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst have a “vote” proportional to the number of people they represent. Not to pick on Iowa, that would work for KY and other states. lol Yeah. Conservatives who would LOVE to return to 3/5 a vote for perceived others are not likely to embrace having their white power subject to an equitable 1:1 representational government once known as democracy.
5I guess that can be a compliment or a swipe depending on who’s levying it. Beyond the filibuster I just don’t think there’s any way around it beyond an amendment. I don’t see how any amendment passes in the current political environment.
6Nick trust that “you ARE” precedes a compliment from us. lol Are any of our “swipes” ever subtle? True, too, not much chance of any amendment passing with the current Congress. It is not hyperbole to state 2022 is it, if we’re to send a message to Congress. Without a significant majority in Congress, nothing changes. No gun safety, no voting rights, no equal taxation, etc., etc., etc. as to what the majority of Americans want.
7Thank you for the compliment. I know not everyone here is a fan. I hope all in your family have a nice and restful holiday. I’ll try to tackle equality or something else when ours is done celebrating.
8