U. S. House of Representatives districts: Every time there's a new court decision or the makeup of the relevant court changes, both of the big political parties take turns complaining about the unfairness of it all or proclaiming that now's their chance.
The House often sits close to the tipping point -- a seat here and another one there can change which party holds the majority. You can't blame the parties when they scramble for that narrow advantage. It's how they're built.
But what are we doing with House districts? Do the ones where you live have much correspondence to communities, neighborhoods, people who shop in the same place, or are they some stretched and stitched-together chimera that groups likely [Party] voters together, no matter what other differences they might have? What was the original point of the House of Representatives, anyway?
The Senate is clearly and obviously where the individual States debate as States. But the House was supposed to be representing you and me, granularly enough that we could write our Congressthing about local issues and they'd have some clue what we were nattering on about and feel some obligation to address it, however inadequately. I'm not sure that's what we've got. I doubt there's any magic rule to drawing up districts that would make them sensible and fair, but the present methods show a remarkable tendency to take the uncertainty out of election results at the expense of any other consideration, no matter which party has the greatest effect on the details.
Maybe it's time to take another look at that, if we could take a break from playing culture war and running what's left of civil society over a cliff.
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
2 comments:
Considering Gerrymandering goes back over 200 years it is pretty much business as usual now. Voting districts at all levels are chosen with an eye to a preferred outcome, not to create zones with the smallest perimeter (most compact).
A better rule to ensure elected officers are responsive to local concerns would be to require candidates to actually reside in their district (or state) long enough to qualify as residents for things like college tuition instead of the carpet-baggers we have today.
My opinion is that it will take the removal of the parties before anything else can change. And when you look at what's happening, most of it is just to support the party system. The district boundaries are drawn to maximize the power of the local party in power, not to let people be properly represented. If we could somehow get a Constitutional Amendment that all political money donations must come from people who are registered to vote for a candidate or issue we would break the party system by denying it money to operate - parties don't run for anything so no tax-free donations to them would be allowed, and they couldn't give money to candidates since they can't register to vote either. I know it's very unlikely to ever happen, the parties would have to approve of it before it could be adopted, but I can still dream.
Post a Comment