Gerrymandering has always been a crime against democracy, but now people have really taken it to its limit. Thanks to the growth in computing power and some nice software packages available quite cheap, you can redistrict to ensure that you will win. Take a look at these maps in the Economist
How to rig an election
I personally have very little faith that what is left of democracy in the US is salvagable. There isn’t enough interest in fighting for a rational system. Those in control on the right don’t care about these horrible abuses currently since they are the ones benefiting the most, the left is completely loath to remove these practices for fear they will loose even more ground to the right. Good luck getting out of that one.
Personally I think the most idiotic aspects of American politics which in my mind *should* garner a universal bipartisan support (but won’t) are reforming to a simple graded tax structure as they have in Ireland, removing the electoral colleges, removing redistricting (by allowing mathematicians to devise a sane algorithmic manner of deriving boundaries) and limiting campaign finance to 0 dollars and having fixed time spots on public television and public radio for campaigning.
I’m also 100% sure that we won’t see any of that.
October 14th, 2005 at 2:06 pm
You thnk the electoral college should be done away with? Why?
October 15th, 2005 at 2:08 pm
A popular vote! Why should we elect officials who aren’t even accepted by 50% of the population.
October 15th, 2005 at 2:38 pm
Be very careful second-guessing the architects of the greatest nation in the world. They got a lot else very right. Consider they might have gotten this right as well.
OK, now on to questioning them: The electoral college idea doesn’t make sense because it’s undemocratic?
It de facto makes presidential elections more “fair”, by giving greater weight to smaller populated states.
Keep in mind also, that democracy is not the end in itself. The end is a free, viable society. If democracy helps to that end, then yeah it’s good. When it derails those ends, alternative should be taken.
October 15th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
I don’t feel that the founding fathers have a monopoly on rational thought and they certainly couldn’t have forseen all circumstances related to their ideas. I think this particular one (electoral colleges) was designed to protect the unwashed masses from running themselves into serious trouble as well as dealing with some very real problems related to the possibilities of each state giving a leader from their own state thereby fragmenting the vote to such an extent that no leader could aquire anywhere near a majority. In our current much stronger federal government, this can hardly be imagined as a problem. Times have changed. The US is radically more centralized than when it was formed. As such the rules of the electoral college function quite differently than when they were formed.
As regards protection from the unwashed masses I don’t see the value in having some group with interests that may not coincide with mine determining how I should vote.
As regards giving representation to states, this seems totally out of place. The states have perfectly good avenues for representation in the legislative branch.
And finally with regards to democracy, I quite agree. When our freedoms are voted away to power hungry oligarchs and we can’t get it back in any other way, than we will have to follow the road of our forfathers.
October 15th, 2005 at 5:12 pm
First of all
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
Is a decent article on the history of the electoral college, and by no means has it been without subject to mutation.
So ironically the electoral college started off as a method of preventing party politics and pandering to the masses for executive office. Obviously this doesn’t seem to have survived history
I do have to plonk down the obligatory that the problems associated with popular vote are mostly introduced because of the “winner takes all” approach in voting, most of which would go away with proportional voting…
Also as a followup, wikipedia has a great treatment on gerrymandering:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
October 16th, 2005 at 2:29 am
Hi~
See my post on New Orleans…
An interesting book, actually a true story, on redistricting to give representation rights to poor, unwashed, Southern negros is titled “Praying for Sheetrock” by Melissa Faye Greene. These people would not have been able to fight for their rights against the corrupt, drug trafficking Good Old Boy system if it had not been for our U.S. Constitution.
October 16th, 2005 at 6:40 am
Well Ian, its nice to know that there are people who aren’t defeatest curmudgeons like myself, and yet are also not unapologetic jingoists. Good luck and more power to you.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
After careful reflection I think that the possible benefits of redistricting are far outweighed by the problems that it induces. If a rule is to be of use it must be applied consistently. If the consistent application of a rule does more harm than good it should be removed.
October 25th, 2005 at 9:31 pm
What do you mean? What benefits are you refering to? People don’t gerrymander, poloticians gerrymander. How could this be a good thing? And how would it out weigh the cons? If it helps people like Tom DeLay?
October 26th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
I meant that even if one were to find some benefit in redistricting, it wouldn’t be enough to justify keeping it because of the enormous potential for harm.
November 9th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Looks like Gerrymandering reform came up as ballot issues in Ohio and California yesterday, and voters shot both propositions down in flames. It’s not just parties and incumbents who like gerrymandering. Voters seem to approve of it too.