Anti-Gerrymandering Amendment Proposal

What I hold most dear about this Republic of ours is its stability.  Like a great ship, it can be buffeted by global storms and tidal currents but for the most part it stays steadily on course.  It does not turn on a dime at every election.  It does not lurch from extreme to extreme.  The body politic will not allow it.  It lumbers on toward the horizon, making minor course corrections.

So how does this relate to gerrymandering? . . . . . .

Because I admire this stability, I often find myself defending our two party democracy from those who criticize it for producing single-party, centrist 'RepubliCrats'.  I agree that the parties differ only on their margins but I think this a GOOD thing.  I disagree that these marginal differences make the parties indistinguishable from one another and unaccountable to the American electorate.  Now that we've had almost six years of George W. Bush thanks to the Nader voters in Florida, we can safely put to rest the falsehood that a Democratic Gore Administration would have been no different than the one we are saddled with.  As for accountability, I believe the electorate has recently and eloquently spoken.

More broadly, a two party system forces politicians and policy to the center where it belongs.  A multi-party system often affords fringe parties and candidates power disproportionate to the size of their constintuencies when their few parliamentary votes are courted by larger parties attempting to form governing coalitions.  Even a two party system occasionally gives birth to this unpleasant condition.  What is most irksome, at this moment, about Lieberman is his inflated self of self importance because he is capable of holding both parties hostage.  He fancies himself a centrist while his behavior resembles that of a tiny minority thrilled to find itself sitting, albeit briefly and through no merit, in the catbird seat.

Of all the sleazy political shenanigans of the Delay Cabal, I found myself most offended by its off-cycle redistricting of Texas.  There are institutions and traditions which have served our country well and exist not because they are spelled out in statute but because their value in preserving stability and civility are obvious.  Filibustering is such an institution.  It dampens the political oscillation from party to party.  It ensures that the two middle quartiles, the 50% who are the heart of this country, have slightly more influence than those further from the center.  It requires not a thin majority, which can be falsely called a mandate, but a broader agreement more closely resembling consensus.  

I would like to see the traditional schedule of redistricting following each national census enshrined in the constitution.  This would eliminate the possibility of another Delay-like fanatic, from either party, hijacking this process whenever there was a slight shift in the political winds.  

•  More important, I believe, would be requiring

  that redistricting be performed by a non-political process.  I know some states have used computer programs and some retired (hopefully non-partisan) judges.  Having politicians design the districts to their own liking has really screwed up politics.

  by bherner on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 07:14:58 AM PDT

•  Nonpartisan

  It should also be non-partisan. Done but an independent group. I hate this partisan bullshit of doing it to keep the incumbant party in power. That's NOT democracy.

  by Cyphrus42 on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 07:19:03 AM PDT

  •  Amen

    Voters should pick their representatives - not the other way around.

    by The Officious Intermeddler on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 07:38:07 AM PDT

•  Why have districting at all

  The way to absolutely stop Gerrymandering is to elect the representatives at large.

  by Gartt on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 07:30:28 AM PDT

  •  That only works

    when the State's population is pretty uniformly distributed geographically and the racial demographics are also uniform.  Otherwise anyone who lives outside the most populous areas and/or doesn't belong to the majority race essentially has no vote.  For example, if my state of Illinois had an at-large system, practically all its Representatives would come from the Chicago area.

    by ebohlman on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 08:24:03 AM PDT

•  Gerrymandering

  I have long hated the idea of it.  You've got districts intentionally drawn not to represent communities of similar interest, or even to be compact and have lines that make sense, but rather so that they will be guaranteed to elect a Republican or a Democrat.  California and Illinois had two terrible examples (thank God Jerry McNerney and Melissa Bean undid them, somewhat, by winning Republican districts.)

  We either need to go to a PR system or, otherwise, have the districts drawn by nonpartisan commissions like the one that Iowa has.  Iowa's districts are drawn by a nonpartisan commission that is not allowed to take political concerns into consideration when drawing the lines, and they don't.  The result of this are districts that a Congressman must be responsive to; this year, two districts flipped from Republican to Democrat.

  One problem, though, is that in many larger states, Democrats and Republicans tend to live near each other.  It's hard to draw a competitive district in the Bay Area, because there are so few Republicans.  Likewise, it's hard to draw a competitive district in the Central Valley, because there are so few Democrats.

  by TDDVandy on Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 07:48:38 AM PDT