During our stop in Ketchikan during the Alaskan Cruise I went on a bike tour. It was pleasant, but not as scenic as I expected, which is why it isn't in my list of highlights. All 11 of us on the tour decided for the more strenuous 11.6 mile route that included a scenic overlook. I am pleased that I was sufficiently in shape that I was more in the middle of the pack instead up bringing up the rear. I suppose it didn't hurt that most of the participants were my age or older.
The trip included a couple from England. I rode beside the man for a while and we got to talking about the differences in our political systems. He commented on a recent story in which congressional district boundaries were blatantly set to favor one party just enough to essentially disenfranchise the rest. Alas, by "recent" he could have meant years and I don't remember the state. However, I can relate because I live in such a district, carefully constructed to be 55% GOP, though it doesn't blatantly meander across the countryside and wasn't the reason for a lawsuit. This kind of behavior is unknown in Great Britain because such things are decided by a scrupulously non-partisan election commission.
And that leads to my question: Is it possible to make our election process non (or even less) political in an era when one party has anti-democracy goals? If so, how do we get there?
First of all, welcome back! I've been to Ketchikan and enjoyed my brief (4 day) visit. Even bought some art while there (wedding of a skeletive was the occasion).
ReplyDeleteAs for your query: I think the question is a bit loaded. Neither party is exactly in favor of democracy. Both parties have demonstrated tendencies to thwart democracy when they are perceived as being powerful enough. The Republicans have certainly taken it to a new level of extremity, but Democrats under Roosevelt were not exactly opposed to Gerrymandering districts.
Could it be less partisan? Sure, but the question is how do we accomplish that? I've always thought that computer models could be made that began at one point in a state, formed basic geometric shapes that lassoed in a set number of voters that would divide districts evenly. Unfortunately, this approach would result in some horrendously large districts (area wise) in states with large rural populations, but that is the case already. I mean, how hard could it be if one already knows that a state has, say, 18 members in the house to let a computer divide the state into 18 districts based on population? You could even let the computer draw up several different models and then have a nonpartisan committee approve one of them. Neither party would approve of such methods and they would be vigorously opposed in court.
My question wasn't so much on the mechanics, but on the politics of it. How do we make the election process less political?
ReplyDeleteI've read stories that the highly partisan commissions that construct congressional districts have loaded their computer programs with voting statistics by precinct (at least). They can have the computer display a map of the proposed district and use the mouse to adjust boundaries while watching real-time tallies of population and party balance. One district (I think in Texas) had the desired numbers and was about to be certified -- until the controlling party realized the candidate for the new district didn't live in it. They had to adjust boundaries again so the candidate's house was included.
I won't quibble with your accusation of anti-democracy tendencies of the Democratic Party. However, my question is still valid. Can it be done?
Ah, my misunderstanding. Well, my answer would be that given the current political climate and rules, then no. The 2 major parties have too much power over the rules governing the political process. In many states third party candidates (and, despite the eccentric tendencies of some third parties, they offer the only hope of a break from the Republicrat power structure) cannot even get on the ballot due to anti-democratic rule structures.
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that we'll have to wait until the Democrats and Republicans get a little more careless with their power grabs. I hope that the latest FISA bill will motivate more people, but I'm afraid that it's still flying under the radar for most Americans. The 2 parties collaborated on that bill and to my mind it shows how desperately we need an opposition to both parties. Until people really begin to move in that direction we'll probably be stuck in this mess.
Sad to say, but it's got to be really painful for large numbers of people to motivate change. It's much easier for people to be sheep than it is to take the time to research, organize, and take control of their lives. While Obama offers some hope, look at who is advisers are since he sealed the nomination. Many of them came from the same team he opposed during the primary. I think that seals the fate of hope.