When The Answer Isn’t Obvious

By | |

First, apply the old Mencken maxim:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

In this case, it’s the central problem of representative democracy: how to pick the representatives? Today, I believe all states whose population gives them more than one seat in the House of Representatives select those on a geographic basis, meaning each Representative is associated with a geographic segment of the State.

It’s the manipulation of those boundaries for electoral dominance that is called gerrymandering.

But what constitutes a fair district? It’s not a simple question. If more of Party A than Party B are registered in a State, should every district reflect that difference? Or should historical results be confined, roughly, to a given district?

Or should districts be drawn to reflect non-electoral realities on the ground? All coal-miners get their own district, perhaps?

When it’s non-obvious, proposals like this tend to sprout from the brows of political watchers and hopefuls, such as Matthew Algeo:

A congressional redistricting nuclear arms race is upon us, and when it’s over, we could be living in a hyper-partisan nuclear winter. But there’s a way to end the arms race: eliminate the arms — in this case, the congressional districts that have grown so hilariously gerrymandered that they can’t be anything but unrepresentative.

After all, there’s nothing sacred about them, and they’re not mandated by the Constitution. Let’s get rid of ’em.

In the early days of the republic, House delegations were often elected at large rather than by district. As late as 1966, Hawaii and New Mexico each elected their two members in statewide elections, with candidates choosing to run for Seat A or Seat B. Mandatory districting was imposed by Congress (not exactly a disinterested party) in 1967, mainly as a way to keep the courts from imposing at-large elections in states with racially gerrymandered districts. [WaPo]

Simple and, I suspect, so so wrong.  All I can see are Party leaderships gathering together to pick those hopefuls who seem to have State-wide popularity, rather than those who know their districts and needs. The requirements of representing California, for example, would be close to overwhelming.

That leads to the actual performance of Representatives. Yes, I know, in our era of bloc-voting employed by both sides – and ably manipulated by certain GOP Representatives, although not recently – this may seem to be antiquated, but I suspect that, as citizens realize rigid ideologies do not serve the country, they will demand a return to better days, and that means better performance by Representatives, and not just performative crap.

I don’t see this scheme as being either representative or leading to better performance.

But it’s worth considering, if only because digging out hypothetical failings opens one’s eyes. Take a thought on this, shake your head, and then justify the shaking.

Bookmark the permalink.

About Hue White

Former BBS operator; software engineer; cat lackey.

Comments are closed.