To reclaim power, voters must crusade

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 12/22/03 | Jay Bookman

[optimistically_conservative]

The system of self-government that we inherited from the Founding Fathers is badly in need of repair. If we are worthy heirs of their work, we'll fix it. But so far we show no sign of doing so.

The symptoms of decline are many, but here may be the most stunning: Last year, of the 435 congressional seats across the country, only four challengers managed to defeat an incumbent. That means one of two things: Either we have a happy and contented electorate, perfectly satisfied with its political leadership, or something has gone afoul with the system. Personally, I lean toward the latter conclusion. The drafters of the Constitution did not intend the U.S. House of Representatives, with its two-year terms, to be a static body with little or no competition for membership, but that is clearly what it has become.

The natural advantages of incumbency simply can't account for the disappearance of effective political competition, not just in the U.S. House but in most state legislative races as well. The better explanation lies with technology, more specifically the introduction of computer software programs that give politicians, not voters, the power to determine who gets elected.

Armed with polling information, voting records, maps, party registration and the range of household and personal data now available, consultants can identify Democratic and Republican voters and where they live with alarming precision. It is then child's play to draw grotesque maps that cram Democrats together with Democrats and Republicans with Republicans, setting up districts all but guaranteed to elect politicians of a given party.

In addition to protecting incumbents, that system has had a couple of other notable effects. In districts dominated by a particular party, representatives have no need to seek crossover votes or appeal to the sensible middle. They instead are free to play to either fringe. In fact, the only danger of defeat in such districts comes from within the dominant party, during a primary, a fact that forces conservatives to become more conservative and liberals to become more liberal.

This is not a healthy situation. It produces a political system that discourages cooperation and moderation, promotes extremism, and takes power away from the voter and places it in the hands of political operatives.

So, what are we going to do about it?

The U.S. Supreme Court recently heard a case out of Pennsylvania, Vieth v. Jubelirer, that asks the court to prevent extreme cases of district-packing on grounds that it dilutes the power of a person's vote. But as several justices suggested during oral arguments, it is difficult to imagine how the courts could craft a legally defensible solution to the problem.

That's just as well, because this is a problem that the American people ought to fix themselves. The solution is relatively simple and elegant and has been pioneered by the state of Iowa. Congressional and legislative districts there are drawn by a nonpartisan commission forbidden to consider political leanings. The result is an orderly political map that looks less like paint drippings and more like bricks stacked atop each other. More importantly, Iowa has more competitive races than anywhere else in the country, as well as a moderate congressional delegation.

Despite its success, the Iowa model has not been duplicated, largely because politicians are not going to voluntarily return the power that computerized redistricting has allowed them to seize. If the American voter wants to reclaim that power -- if the health of our democracy matters to us -- we'll have to force a change through some sort of national crusade, along the lines of the term-limit movement.

That movement eventually fell short because it offered a flawed solution, artificially limiting the voters' power to elect who they wished. Insisting on sanity in redistricting would do the opposite -- expanding voter choice and encouraging more responsible, responsive leadership. In this era of cheap talk about patriotism, there is nothing more true to the American spirit than taking back power. We simply have to stir ourselves enough to do it.

[cripplecreek]

judicial activism isnt helping matters much. when the courts are ruling against an 80 and 90% majority somethings very wrong.

[spunkets]

"a nonpartisan commission forbidden to consider political leanings."

There's no such thing as nonpartisan. Folks claiming to be nonpartisan are almost always rats.

[optimistically_conservative]

judicial activism isnt helping matters much. when the courts are ruling against an 80 and 90% majority somethings very wrong.

No it's not, but the problem of judicial activism was not unforeseen. The larger problem is the unwillingness of the legislature or executive to exercise their power to check or balance the judiciary. Part of the good ole boy network.

One option not mentioned here that I think is interesting is allowing the States to choose proportional, or preference, voting for the House. The Senate and President/VP would not change, but that is a good check on the system. Judicial activism mandated winner-take-all, and I think that has made gerrymandering more attractrive.

[Jack Black]

How about redistricting by formula. A state is divided into a grid of one mile squares. Redistrictintg begins in the Alternating corners in different cycles. The districts of the states consists of adding "bricks" one a time in a given pattern. Say 20 down then across. When the edge of the state is reached drop down and return across the map.

[Billthedrill]

Incumbency has some inherent advantages, free postal franking being only one of a galaxy. The existing party structure means that funding for the incumbent starts from the day of his or her election, and is not until his opponent is selected from a slate of aspirants. But the biggest one is name recognition - the Founders could not have anticipated broadcast media keeping the office-holder in front of one's face for the entirity of his or her term. It may be that the Internet will supply something of a corrective here.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

the term-limit movement . . . eventually fell short because it offered a flawed solution, artificially limiting the voters' power to elect who they wished.

Insisting on sanity in redistricting would do the opposite -- expanding voter choice and encouraging more responsible, responsive leadership.

The limiting case of term-limits would be the selection of representatives by lot rather than by ballot. With true random selection and a large legislative body, that would be a more representative body than a gerrymander could ever be likely to provide.

The only way to really prohibit gerrymandering would be election at large--the party split in the congressional delegation then represents the proportion of the votes for the various parties.

Folks claiming to be nonpartisan are almost always rats.

Yes indeed.

[Nick Danger]

The Judiciary is appointed for life. The Executive branch consists of two elected officials presiding over a staggeringly huge bureaucracy composed of career employees.

If the legislature becomes a career endeavor as well, then there is no constituency for limited government anywhere in the system. Those things which are supposed to oversee the government, become the government. The result is the leviathan we have today.

Given that these people are elected to serve us, I think we should do more to keep them safe. That is why I propose the Congressional Barracks, a cross between a Motel 6 and a minimum-security prison in which these exalted officials would have to live during their terms. We would also issue them cars... Geo Metros or something similarly stylish.

There needs to be a down side to being a big shot, because otherwise being a big shot is too addicting. Right now these people get to walk around like Brahmins, getting the best seats in the restaurants even without reservations, getting invited to the skybox for the Super Bowl, and all that happy stuff. Having tasted that, who wouldn't want it to continue? Well, maybe if they had to come home every night to a fairly spartan one-room apartment with few to no conveniences, they might develop a taste for life outside the compound.

We could also put a really bad garage band in there with them, and the more seniority they acquire, the closer we move them to where the garage band practices.

[k2blader]

because this is a problem that the American people ought to fix themselves.

This is what I've thought for a while. But given the generally apathetic nature of the electorate, I'm not very optimistic.