Gerrymandered America Renders Many Voters Voiceless

In a democratic system, the fundamental rule is the sovereignty of the people. Whether that takes the form of a parliamentary system, a presidential one, or direct democracy, all are founded on the premise that the people should rule. In America’s 2006 election, that principle may still apply but only by the thinnest of margins. The professional politicians and their collaborators in the courts have ensured that fewer and fewer seats are competitive. Indeed, pollsters believe the Democrats may win 20 or so House seats from the GOP, but were the same conditions in place in 1976, they would gain 150. Now, most seats will not change hands because they almost cannot.

The most egregious example of this is the way in which Tom DeLay, the indicted former Republican congressman from Texas, led an unusual effort to redraw boundaries in his state after the 2002 election. The Texas delegation to Washington was 17-15 Democratic then, but after the new boundaries came into effect in 2004, the GOP took 21 to the Dems 11, on a vote that didn’t really move across party lines. Texas is far from alone in using the power of redistricting to enhance the chances of one party or another winning seats out of proportion to the ballots cast for it.

The trouble comes from the mistaken belief that paying legislators to serve makes it possible for the poor to be represented in the legislature. There are no poor people in America’s Congress, and most members of the Senate are millionaires. But because these positions are six-figure jobs, they are worth keeping, at any price. And since everyone in Congress is an incumbent by definition, they all have the same interest – protecting the re-election rate. If this sounds cynical, why is it that out of 435 seats in the House of Representatives, fewer than 10% are deemed competitive? The turnover rate rivals that of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which had to bring in new blood due to sickness and death.

This journal is very suspicious of democracy. One would, really, rather be governed by the above-average rather than the average voter. However, Sir Winston Churchill’s observation, that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others, holds true. At least when the people vote, there is a legitimacy bestowed that no other system provides. That legitimacy is undermined if the democratic process of voting is subverted by deceitful counts, onerous registration requirements and gerrymandering. When a government with 30% of the vote can win 55% of the seats, does the voting support or undermine the principle of a sovereign people?

The solution requires Americans to rethink voting in a first-past-the-post system for one person. Multiple member districts with single transferable (also known as instant run-off) ballots solve it all, as European experience shows. California, for example, has 52 House seats. Let voters mark their ballots in order of preference, with the entire state as a single constituency. As a result, anyone with around 2% of the vote is elected, those at the bottom are eliminated, and their votes moved to the second preference. This process continues until there are 52 Congressmen/women elected.

This system encourages several parties to participate, and broader array of candidates would result in higher voter turnout since more people vote when their votes count. Needless to say, for these reasons, the Incumbent Party will not allow it. On Tuesday, Democrats will get 55%-60% of the vote, and they might, just might, win a majority in the House. No wonder Iraqis don’t seem to want the kind of democracy America is offering at gunpoint.

© Copyright 2006 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home